Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Synergy Fuller
Synergy Fuller
Arthur L. Loeb
Amy C. Edmondson
In Preparation
Marjorie Senechal
and George Fleck
(Eds.)
Arthur L. Loeb
Amy C. Edmondson
A Fuller Explanation
The Synergetic Geometry of
R. Buckminster Fuller
Birkhauser
Boston . Basel . Stuttgart
Amy C. Edmondson
A Fuller Explanation
The Synergetic Geometry of R. Buckminster Fuller
Coden: DSCOED
First Printing, 1987
ISBN 978-0-8176-3338-7
ISBN 978-1-4684-7485-5 (eBook)
001 10.1007/978-1-4684-7485-5
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recorded
or otherwise, without prior written permission of the copyright owner, Birkhauser Boston, Inc.,
380 Green Street, P.O.B. 2007, Cambridge, MA 02139, U.S.A.
ISBN 978-0-8176-3338-7
Typeset by Science Typographers, Inc., Medford, New York.
To my parents
Mary Dillon Edmondson and Robert Joseph Edmondson
Contents
1.
2.
3.
Return to Modelability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
6
7
9
11
12
14
The Irrationality of Pi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
16
18
19
22
23
25
28
30
33
Contents
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
36
37
38
40
41
41
43
45
46
48
51
52
54
Pattern Integrity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56
60
65
66
66
Vector Equilibrium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
82
84
85
87
90
91
93
100
100
101
67
68
68
70
72
73
74
75
78
79
Contents
9.
10.
11.
xi
101
102
102
106
109
110
114
114
117
120
121
124
127
130
131
133
134
135
136
136
137
138
140
141
143
Volume. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Results: Volume Ratios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Shape Comparisons: Qualities of Space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Volume: Direct Comparison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Multiplication by Division. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Tetrahedron as Starting Point. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Cube. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Vector Equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Rhombic Dodecahedron ..........................
Multiplication by Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Cosmic Hierarchy (of Nuclear Event Patternings) ..........
Volume Reconsidered ............................
143
144
146
147
149
149
150
152
153
154
157
157
Jitterbug.......................................
159
Folding a Polyhedron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Volume and Phase Changes ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
160
163
Contents
xii
12.
13.
14.
Icosahedron. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Single Layer versus IVM ..........................
"Trans-Universe" versus "Locally Operative" ...........
Fives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
"S-Modules" ..................................
Icosahedron and Rhombic Dodecahedron .. . . . . . . . . . . ..
Pentagonal Dodecahedron. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Four Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Complex of Jitterbugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Other Dynamic Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Topology and Phase .............................
163
164
165
165
167
167
168
169
170
172
172
175
Plane Tessellations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Filling Space ....................................
Complementarity ...............................
Other Space Fillers ..............................
The Search Continues ............................
The Dual Perspective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Duality and Domain in Sphere Packing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Truncated Octahedron. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Two to One: A Review ...........................
176
177
178
179
180
181
183
184
185
189
190
190
193
195
197
198
198
199
201
203
206
207
208
209
213
215
216
217
Ii
Contents
xiii
219
221
223
226
226
228
229
230
230
232
. . . ..
. . . ..
. . . ..
. . . ..
. . . ..
. . . ..
. . . ..
. . . ..
. . . ..
. . . ..
235
237
240
243
245
249
250
251
255
257
"Design Science" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
"Comprehensive Anticipatory Design Science" ..........
"Comprehensive ... " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
" ... Anticipatory ... " ............................
Dymaxion Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Suspended Storage Systems ........................
More with Less. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
258
258
259
261
263
266
268
Appendices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
271
A. Trigonometric Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
B. Volume Calculations for Three Prime
Structural Systems ..............................
C. Sources of Additional Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
D. Special Properties of the Tetrahedron. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
E. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
271
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
287
289
295
15.
16.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
273
277
279
281
xvi
xvii
and idiom into a language more accessible to the lay audience and
more acceptable to the scientist.
Amy Edmondson has succeeded admirably in conveying to us not
just the idiom but also the atmosphere of Fuller's "office." There
were no professional draftsmen, for the staff was minimal. We
believe that the sense of a direct link to the Fuller office would be
enhanced by reproducing Edmondson's own illustrations directly,
just as she would have produced them there.
With A Fuller Explanation we initiate the Design Science Collection, an exploration of three-dimensional space from the varied
perspectives of the designer, artist, and scientist. Through this series
we hope to extend the repertoire of the former to professions by
using natural structure as an example, and to demonstrate the role of
esthetic sensibility and an intuitive approach in the solution of
scientific problems.
ARTHUR
Cambridge, Massachusetts
L.
LOEB
Preface
Buckminster Fuller has been alternately hailed as the most innovative thinker of our time and dismissed as an incomprehensible
maverick, but there is a consistent thread running through all the
wildly disparate reactions. One point about which there is little
disagreement is the difficulty of understanding Bucky. "It was great!
What did he say?" is the oft-repeated joke, describing the reaction of
a typical enraptured listener after one of Fuller's lectures.
Not surprisingly then, Fuller's mathematical writing has not attracted a mass audience. Rather, synergetics has become a sort of
Fuller proving ground, into which only a few scientific-minded types
dare to venture. "Oh, I'll never be able to understand it then" has
been the response of countless people upon learning that the subject
of my book is synergetics. This reaction would have saddened Bucky
immensely: he was so sure his geometry was appropriate for fiveyear-olds! However, such shyness is understandable; deciphering
Fuller's two volumes, Synergetics and Synergetics 2, requires a
sizable commitment of time and patience from even the most dedicated reader. Study groups have gone a long way toward helping
individuals unravel the idiosyncratic, hyphenated prose of these two
works, but the task, still arduous, is not for everyone. However, as
those who dared it will have discovered, the major concepts presented in Fuller's intimidating books are not inherently difficult, and
much of synergetics can be explained in simple, familiar terms. That
is the purpose of A Fuller Explanation.
Synergetics, in the broadest terms, is the study of spatial complexity, and as such is an inherently comprehensive discipline. Designers,
architects, and scientists can easily find applications of this study in
their work; however, the larger significance of Fuller's geometry may
be less visible. Experience with synergetics encourages a new way of
approaching and solving problems. Its emphasis on visual and
xx
Preface
Acknowledgments
C.
EDMONDSON
Note to Readers
Introduction
The scene is Montreal, 1967: travelers from around the world emerge
from a subway station at the Expo site, and catch their first glimpse
of an enormous transparent bubble. Looking and exclaiming, they
gravitate toward this strange monument, which is the United States
Pavilion, and few notice the stocky white-haired old man, straining
his slightly deaf ears to glean their reactions. Buckminster Fuller,
playing the disinterested bystander, along with Anne Hewlett Fuller,
his wife of exactly fifty years, is a triumphant eavesdropper; the
candid observers have enthusiastically approved his design. Fifteen
years later, he recalls that summer morning with a playful grin,
clearly enjoying the memory of his short stint as detective, and I can
almost see him there, standing next to Anne, silently sharing the
knowledge that the years of perserverence-ignoring skepticism and
often decidedly harsh disapproval of his mathematical work-were
vindicated.
Bucky is such a gifted story teller that I also imagine I can see the
huge geodesic sphere reflecting the intense summer sun, and it looks
more like one of nature's creations than architecture. But it is steel,
Plexiglas and human ingenuity that have created this glittering
membrane, which was, in 1967, the world's largest dome, spanning
250 feet and reaching an altitude equal to that of a twenty-story
building, without any interior support.
More than just the millions who visited Expo '67 have admired
this architectural feat, and humanity has found countless other uses
for the geodesic dome, as evidenced by the 100,000 such structures
of various materials and sizes that are sprinkled around the globe.
However, the "synergetic geometry," which lies behind Fuller's
remarkable design, has remained almost completely obscure.
The goal of this book is to catalyze a process which I hope will
continue and expand on its own: to rescue Fuller's fascinating
material from its unfortunate obscurity.
A. C. E.
1
Return to Modelability1
A Fuller Explanation
mathematical principles underlying the elegant efficiency of structures such as the Octet Truss and geodesic dome. Happily, these
principles are easily accessible once you get into the spirit of Fuller's
approach: synergetics is a "hands-on" branch of mathematics.
However, listening to one of Fuller's all-encompassing lectures,
you might wonder when the "hands-on" part begins. Tangibility is
not a prominent feature in his spell-binding discourse, the subject of
which is no less than "humans in universe." He challenges, in the
course of a few hours, age-old assumptions about our lives and
institutions, asking us to reconsider the most commonplace aspects
of experience. Some of his observations are stated so simply, you
may find yourself wondering, "Why haven't I thought about that
before"? For example:
How many of you have said to your children, "darling, look at the beautiful sun
going down"? [A show of many hands.] "Well, we've known for five-hundred years
that the sun isn't going down, and yet we consider it practical to keep on lying to
our children!
Or:
When I was born in 1895, reality was everything you could see, smell, touch and
hear. The world was thought to be absolutely self-evident. When I was three years
old, the electron was discovered. That was the first invisible. It didn't get in any of
the newspapers; (nobody thought that would be important!) Today 99.99% of
everything that affects our lives cannot be detected by the human senses. We live in
a world of invisibles.
And later, he takes his keys out of his pocket and carelessly tosses
them in the air; gravity takes care of the landing.
Nature doesn't have to have department meetings to decide what to do with
those keys, or how to grow a turnip. She knows just what to do. It must be that
nature has only one department, one coordinating system. 2
l. Return to Modelability
What college student (or human being for that matter) would not be
overjoyed to receive an invitation to work on "ever-more relevant
affairs" from the person she most admires? That is precisely what I
found in my mailbox in 1980 when Buckminster Fuller actually
answered my letter, the timid plea of an undergraduate: "What can
people do toward furthering your vision of making this planet work
for everyone? And where can I apply the experience of having
studied synergetics"? I was later to understand that Fuller's responding to an undergraduate's letter was not a miracle but instead
revealed his profound trust in the integrity and capability of human
beings-and especially of youth. His action was typical of his life
and work, which relied heavily on intuition, with a powerful faith in
the willingness of others to apply their minds as diligently and
joyfully as he applied his. We have to take Fuller at his word when
he claims to be not a genius but an "average healthy human being"
who exercised his option to think. He embraced that potential in all
of us.
I was introduced to the intricate discipline of geometry in a
Harvard course "Synergetics: the structure of ordered space" taught
by the editor of this series, Arthur L. Loeb and I had been fascinated
by this material for a couple of years. Reconciled to its obscurity, I
was enchanted by the perfection and complexity of this body of
geometric knowledge, which was all but completely hidden from
popular awareness. In those days Loeb's course was similarly hidden,
a bizarre option within the two-inch-thick course catalog, taught in a
sequestered attic in Sever Hall where one would never wander
accidentally. My peers had no doubt that there was a reason for that.
In fact, my academic pursuits were perceived by most as an irreverent cross between kindergarten games and mathematical torture. My
roommates, forever tripping over cardboard tetrahedra and unsuccessful tensegrity wheelbarrows while gingerly avoiding small de-
A Fuller Explanation
1. Return to Modelability
learned that truth was far more elusive than he had made it sound
that night at MIT. But the geometry was no less seductive, and
ultimately I decided to risk a thirteen-cent stamp.
And then his unexpected letter arrived-in response to my earnest
but decidedly indirect questions. Even a photocopied list of organizations would have been received with joy. How it was that my letter
filtered through the procedural maze that lay between Buckminster
Fuller and the formidable stack of mail that was opened and sorted
by various trusted assistants every day, I'll never know.
The signature was real:
Dear Amy Edmondson:
... I would like to take advantage of your offer to come and work with me .... I
am busier and busier with ever more relevant affairs.
Warmly, Faithfully,
Buckminster Fuller
A Fuller Explanation
1. Return to Modelability
A Fuller Explanation
1. Return to Modelability
What accounts for the shape similarities among unrelated phenomena, radically different in both scale and material? Or, more fundamentally, what accounts for nature's magnificent orderliness itself?
Whether honeycomb or conch shell or virus, time after time individual structures turn out true to form. The fundamental hypothesis
behind synergetics-and the work of many other pioneers exploring
the science of form-is that nature's structuring occurs according to
the requirements of minimum energy, itself a function of the interplay between physical forces and spatial constraints.
10
A Fuller Explanation
1. Return to Mode1ability
11
The ultimate manifestation of nature's coordinate system is "Universe." Fuller deliberately omits the article, for" the universe" implies the possible existence of more than one-just as we do not say
"the God" but rather simply "God." Fuller capitalizes "Universe"
for the same reason: Universe is everything; it's all there is. (Or,
more poetically, "Universe is all that isn't me and me."6) But Fuller
would never leave it at that; he is indefatigably thorough.
Einstein revolutionized our understanding of Universe, explains
Fuller; prior to his relativity theory, we could think in terms of a
single-frame (simultaneously complete) picture, unimaginably vast,
but still simultaneous at any given moment. This understanding
must now be replaced by a "scenario" concept:
301.10 Universe is the aggregate of all humanity's consciously apprehended and
communicated nonsimultaneous and only partially overlapping experiences.
12
A Fuller Explanation
1. Return to Modelability
13
Mind is the ... uniquely human faculty that surveys the ever larger inventory of
special-case experiences stored in the brain bank and ... from time to time discovers
one of the rare scientifically generalizable principles running consistently through all
the relevant experience set. (Synergetics, p. xxvi)
14
A Fuller Explanation
2
The Irrationality of Pi
16
A Fuller Explanation
2. The Irrationality of Pi
17
18
A Fuller Explanation
2. The Irrationality of Pi
19
Fuller proposed a revolution in modes of thinking and problem-solving, which above all else required a comprehensive approach, as will
be discussed in Chapter 16. To Fuller, "comprehensive" means not
leaving out anything-least of all humanity's important tool of
language. A dictionary contains an inventory of 250,000 agreements,
he explains, specific sounds developed as symbols for 250,000 nuances
of experience. He saw this gradual accomplishment as one of the
most remarkable developments in the history of humanity, with its
implied cooperative effort.
One aspect of his revolution thus involves an effort to employ
words accurately. Fuller's discourses on the subject tend to be quite
humorous, almost (but not quite) concealing how deeply serious he
was about the matter. Much of our language is absolutely stuck in
"dark ages" thinking, he would lecture. Up and down, for instance.
These two words are remnants of humanity'S early perception of a
flat earth; "there is no up and down in Universe!" exclaims Fuller.
When we say" look down at the ground" or "I'm going downstairs"
we reinforce an underlying sensory perception of a platform world.
N either the ground nor Australia can accurately be referred to as
down; three hours after a man in California says that the astronauts
are up in the sky, the shuttle is located in the direction of his feet.
Up and down are simply not very precise on a spherical planet. The
replacements? In and out. The radially organized systems of Universe have two basic directions: in toward the center and radially out
in a plurality of directions. Airplanes go out to leave and back in to
land on the earth's surface. We go in toward the center of the earth
when we walk downstairs. The substitutions seem somewhat trivial
20
A Fuller Explanation
2. The Irrationality of Pi
11
21
EE
22
A Fuller Explanation
GtE
(0
4ft
27
64
2. The Irrationality of Pi
23
24
A Fuller Explanation
3
Systems and Synergy
Fuller's mathematical explorations seem to fly out in many directions at once, but they share a common starting point in the concept
of systems. Derived from the Greek for "putting together," the word
system means any group of interrelated elements involved in a
collective entity. If that sounds vague, it's meant to. The theme is
widely encompassing.
Long ago, secluded in his room experimenting with toothpicks or
ping-pong balls or whatever available material seemed likely to
reveal nature's secrets, Fuller began to see a persistent message of
interdependence. He was later to discover the precisely descriptive
word" synergy," but even without that lexical advantage a sense of
interacting parts increasingly dominated his vision. More like the
poets and artists of his generation than the scientists, he was drawn
to relationships rather than objects.
By stating that Fuller looked at systems, we learn very little,
especially in view of the word's current popularity. We have transportation systems and systems analysts, stereo systems and even
skin-care systems, all conspiring to diminish the precision and usefulness of the word. But let us enter into the spirit of Bucky's
half-century search and abandon our twentieth-century sophistication in order to rediscover the obvious en route to the surprising and
complex. Much can be gained, for alongside our era's growing
consciousness of systems and interdependence is also its ever-increasing specialization. Individuals are encouraged to narrow their
focus, precluding a comprehensive vision and inhibiting curiosity.
How-things-work questions are reserved for children; as adults we
are afraid to step outside our expertise. Furthermore, we are quite
likely to have decided that we have no use for mathematics at all by
the time we reach high school. Both factors-specialization and
avoidance of mathematics-cause some aspects of Fuller's synergetics to seem dense while others seem oddly simple. However, the
novelty of his approach serves to give us new insights, so bear with
26
A Fuller Explanation
27
_ _ _ '~7b
c
Fig. 3-1. Six connections between four events, defining a tetrahedral system.
28
A Fuller Explanation
29
30
A Fuller Explanation
Hold on, says the child, that's only two triangles! Why did you say
there were four? Well, Bucky continues, concave and convex 3 are not
the same; when you delineated two concave triangles on the outside
surface, you also created two convex spherical triangles-one very
small and the other very large-on the inside. But I didn't mean to
make four triangles, protests the bewildered child. That doesn't
matter, his teacher replies; you are still responsible for them.
His story can be considered a parable; its purpose is as much to
encourage a sort of holistic morality as to make a mathematical
statement. The message: tunnel vision is obsolete. As human beings,
we cannot afford to ignore the effect of our actions on the rest of a
system while working on an isolated part. Rather we must become
responsible for whole systems. We didn't mean to make four triangles-or indeed, to make "the big mess of pollution" (814.01).
As playful as this example seems, it calls our attention to what
Fuller perceives as a dangerous "bias on one side of the line"
inherent in traditional mathematics. He points out that our gradeschool geometry lessons involve concepts defined as bounded by
certain lines-a triangle is an area bounded by three lines, for
example-thus excusing us from paying attention to its environment. Once a figure is delineated, we no longer have to consider the
rest of the system. This narrow approach, Fuller argues, instills in us
at an impressionable age a deep bias toward our side of the line; we
see and feel an unshakable correctness about our side's way of
"carrying on." On the other hand, "Operational geometry invalidates all bias" (811.04). It forces us to remain aware of all sides. In
Fuller's opinion, being taught in the first place that all four triangles
are "equally valid" would significantly influence our later thinking
and planning.
One consequence of this approach is Fuller's realization that
"unity is inherently plural" (400.08). "Oneness" is impossible, he
explains, for any identifiable system divides Universe into two parts,
and requires a minimum of six relationships to do so. Furthermore,
as illustrated in the above parable, all "operations" produce a
plurality of experiences, and awareness itself-without which there
can be no life-implies the existence of "otherness." Ergo, "Unity is
plural and at minimum twO.,,4
Limits of Resolution as Part of the Whole-Systems Approach
Another important aspect of Fuller's systems concept is tune-in-ability, which deals with limits of resolution and is best explained by
analogy. Fuller's ready example, as implied by the term, would be to
31
32
A Fuller Explanation
progressive dismissal of irrelevant (other-frequency) events, ultimately leaving only the few experiences which are "lucidly relevant,"
and thus interconnected by their relationships.
Thinking isolates events; "understanding" then interconnects
them. "Understanding is structure," Fuller declares, for it means
establishing the relationships between events.
A "thought" is then a "relevant set," or a "considerable set":
experiences related to each other in some way. All the rest of
experience is outside the set-not tuned in. A thought therefore
defines an insideness and an outsideness; it is a "conceptual subdivision of Universe." "I'll call it a system," declares Bucky; "I now
have a geometric description of a thought."
This is the conclusion that initially led Fuller to wonder how many
"events" were necessary to create insideness and outsideness. Realizing that a thought required at least enough "somethings" to define
an isolated system, it seemed vitally important to know the minimum number-the terminal condition. He thereby arrived at the
tetrahedron. "This gave me great power of definition," he recalls,
both in terms of understanding more about "thinking" and by
isolating the theoretical minimum case, with its four events and six
relationships.
One example of the development of a thought-by no means a
minimal thought-could be found in what to cook for dinner.
Walking to the grocery store, you notice that the leaves of the maple
trees are turning autumn-red, but you consciously push that observation off to the side to be considered later, as it does not relate to the
pressing issue of dinner. You begin to pull in the various relevant
items: the food that you already have at home that could become a
part of this meal, what you had for dinner last night, special items
that might be featured by the grocery store, favorite foods, how they
look, ideas about nutrition, certain foods that go well together, and
so on. Out of this jumble of related events, a structure starts to take
form. After a while, dinner is planned, and your mind is free to
attend to some of the other thoughts waiting quietly in the side
chambers.
This kind of digression is typical of Fuller's discourse, both
written and oral. Such juxtapositions of geometry and philosophy
are quite deliberate, for synergetics strives to identify structural
similarities among phenomena-both physical and metaphysical.
Fuller encourages us to seek these patterns, which we often miss
because of the narrow focus of our attention.
To conclude: Geometry is the science of systems-which are
themselves defined by relationships. (Geometry is therefore the study
33
34
A Fuller Explanation
35
4
Tools of the Trade
37
38
A Fuller Explanation
Let's study the possibilities step by step, beginning with the simplest
polygon (fewest sides) and the smallest number of edges meeting at
each vertex. In keeping with Fuller's use of vectors as edges, this
study will be confined to "straight" edges. It is quickly apparent that
a minimum of three edges must meet at each vertex of a polyhedron,
for if vertices join only two straight edges, the resulting array is
necessarily planar. This lower limit can also be expressed in terms of
faces, for we can readily visualize that a corner needs at least three
polygons in order to hold water-which is another way of saying the
inside is separated from the outside, as specified by Fuller's definition of system.
The minimal polygon is a triangle. Three triangles around one
vertex form a pyramid, the base of which automatically creates a
fourth triangular face. As all corners and all faces are identical, the
first regular polyhedron-a tetrahedron-is completed after one step
(Fig. 4-1a).
N ext, a second regular polyhedron can be started by surrounding
one vertex with four triangles, resulting in the traditional square-
(a)
(e)
(b)
Fig. 4-1
39
(a)
(b)
/\ - -- -7',
I
I
I
/\--~-~/
\
'----
(c)
Fig. 4-2
40
A Fuller Explanation
Fig. 4-3
Let's back up and start the procedure over, with another kind of
polygon. Continuing the step-by-step approach, we change from
triangles to squares by increasing the number of sides by one. The
method is reliable if plodding. What happens if two squares come
together? Again, that's just a hinge (Fig. 4-3). So start with three. If
there are three squares around one corner, the same must be true for
all corners, and as before, the structure is self-determining. Continue
to join three squares at available vertices until the system closes itself
off. With six squares and eight corners, this is the most familiar
shape in our developing family of regular polyhedra-the ubiquitous
cube.
Next, we gather four squares at a vertex and immediately hit
ground. Four times 90 degrees is 360 degrees, the whole plane again.
And while such groups of four will generate graph paper indefinitely,
they can never close off as a system. So that's it for squares.
41
Fig. 4-4
Pentagons
42
A Fuller Explanation
Fig. 4-5
43
realization that all patterns can be broken down into three elements:
crossings, lines, and open areas. He thereby introduced the basic
elements of structure (vertices, edges, and faces) which underlie all
geometrical analysis. Bucky saw this contribution as a breakthrough
of equal importance to the law for which Euler is known, for this
precise identification of terms enabled Euler's other, more famous
observation.
Euler's law
Euler's law states that the number of vertices plus the number of
faces in every system (remember Fuller's definition) will always
equal the number of edges plus two. It may not sound like much at
first, until you reflect on the variety of structures-from the tetrahedron to the aforementioned crocodile-that all obey this simple
statement. Every system shares this fundamental relationship. The
number of vertices can be precisely determined by knowing the
number of faces and edges, and so on.
Denote the numbers of vertices, faces, and edges by V, F, and E
respectively. Then we have V + F = E + 2. What about that constant 2? The other numbers might be extremely large, or as small as
four, yet by Euler's equation the difference between the number of
edges and the sum of the number of vertices and faces will always be
exactly two. It seems unlikely at first.
To gain confidence in this principle, let's try it out on the regular
polyhedra. Remember the four vertices and four faces of the tetrahedron; four plus four is eight, exactly two more than its six edges.
Not bad so far. Similarly, we can count to check the other four
regular polyhedra. The results are displayed in Table I.
The persistent 2 has led to some controversy. Fuller long ago
assigned his own meaning to the recurring number: 2 occurs in the
Table I
Tetrahedron
Octahedron
Cube
Icosahedron
Pentagonal
dodecahedron
Total
2
2
2
2
8
14
14
32
20 + 12 = 30 + 2
32
4+
6+
8+
12 +
4= 6+
8 = 12 +
6 = 12 +
20 = 30 +
44
A Fuller Explanation
45
further states that the number of edges is three times the number of
vertices less two.
Turning these two statements into simple equations, we have
F
2(V - 2)
3(V - 2).
and
Simplifying,
2V - 4,
E = 3V - 6,
= 2V,
E + 6 = 3V.
Combining the two equations by subtraction, we have
F
F +4
E
-(F
E - F
+6
+4
+2
3V
2V)
V,
or
E+2=V+F.
So his observations directly substantiate Euler's law. Constant relative abundance refers to the everpresent two faces and three edges
for each vertex in triangulated polyhedra, (excepting of course the
two" poles," which are not included, according to Fuller's rationale).
Duality
Table I reveals a curious pattern. Notice the relationship between
cube and octahedron, along with the similar pairing of pentagonal
dodecahedron and icosahedron. Polyhedra thus related, each with
the same number of vertices as the other has faces, are called each
other's dual. 6 We are thereby introduced to duality as a numerical
relationship; the vertex and face tallies are simply switched. Reassuringly, the significance extends: Loeb observes the geometric manifestation of duality in precise matching of vertex to face. Two dual
polyhedra line up with every corner of each meeting the center of a
window of the other, as the correspondence implies. (Figure 4-7a
shows the dual relationship of the cube and octahedron.)
We have conspicuously ignored one member of Plato's polyhedral
family. What is the tetrahedron's dual? Following Loeb's example,
we count elements to predict the answer, and find the same number
of vertices as faces. Therefore, by interchanging the two elements to
find the tetrahedron's dual, we generate another tetrahedron (Fig.
46
A Fuller Explanation
Fig. 4-7. (a), (b) Dual polyhedra. (c) Two
tetrahedra intersect to form the eight
vertices of a cube: "star tetrahedron."
(a)
(b)
(c)
4-7b). Once again, the minimum system stands out: only the tetrahedron is its own dual. Put two of them together to check: the four
windows and corners line up, and curiously, the combined eight
vertices of two same-size tetrahedra outline the corners of a cube, as
Fuller never tired of explaining. ["Two equal tetrahedra (positive
and negative) joined at their common centers define the cube"
(462.00, figure; Fig.4-6c).]
(a)
(b)
(c)
47
(d)
48
A Fuller Explanation
(b)
(a)
(d)
(e)
Fig. 4-10. (a), (b) Truncation of cube and octahedron. (c), (d) Degenerate truncation
of cube produces the same polyhedron as degenerate truncation of octahedron:
cub octahedron.
49
50
A Fuller Explanation
Fig. 4-12. Degenerate stellation of cube produces the same polyhedron as degenerate
stellation of octahedron: rhombic dodecahedron.
51
rhombic dode-
52
A Fuller Explanation
(a)
R
(b)
Fig. 4-14
53
5
Structure and "Pattern Integrity"
55
Fig. 5-1
56
A Fuller Explanation
rigid. So what is responsible for the sudden change? Before going on,
he wants us to really understand why a triangle holds its shape.
Two sticks connected by a hinge create two lever arms. The farther
out a force is applied, the greater the mechanical advantage-which
means that forces of decreasing strength can accomplish the same
result (Fig. 5-2). Each flexible corner is stabilized with minimum
mechanical effort by a force exerted at the very ends of its two sticks,
or lever arms. A third stick, acting as a "push- pull brace," can be
attached to the ends of the other two sticks, to most efficiently
stabilize the flexible opposite angle. So each of the triangle's three
sticks "stabilizes its opposite angle with minimum effort." Only a
triangle has a built-in bracing device for each corner; therefore, only
a triangle is stable.
Pattern Integrity
The term" pattern integrity" is a product of Fuller's lifelong commitment to vocabulary suitable for describing Scenario Universe. He
57
explains,
When we speak of pattern integrities, we refer to generalized patterns of
conceptuality gleaned sensorially from a plurality of special-case pattern experiences . .. . In a comprehensive view of nature, the physical world is seen as a
patterning of patternings .... (505.01-4)
Let's start with his own simplest illustration. Tie a knot in a piece
of nylon rope. An "overhand knot," as the simplest possible knot, is
a good starting point. Hold both ends of the rope and make a loop
by crossing one end over the other, tracing a full circle (360 degrees).
Then pick up the end that lies underneath, and go in through the
opening to link a second loop with the first (another 360-degree
turn). The procedure applies a set of instructions to a piece of
material, and a pattern thereby becomes visible.
What if we had applied the same instructions to a segment of
manila rope instead? Or a shoelace? Or even a piece of cooked
spaghetti? We would still create an overhand knot. The procedure
does not need to specify material. "A pattern has an integrity
independent of the medium by virtue of which you have received the
information that it exists" (505.201). The knot isn't that little bundle
that we can see and touch, it's a weightless design, made visible by
the rope.
The overhand-knot pattern has integrity: once tied, it stays put. In
contrast, consider directions that specify going around once (360
degrees), simply making a loop. This pattern quickly disappears with
the slightest provocation; it is not a pattern integrity. (Even though
the overhand knot depends on friction to maintain its existence, a
single loop will not be a stable pattern no matter how smooth or
coarse the rope.) Notice that it requires a minimum of two full
circles to create a pattern integrity. 2 X 360 = 720 degrees, the same
as the sum of the surface angles of the tetrahedron (four triangles
yield 4 X 180 degrees). Minimum system, minimum knot, 720 degrees. A curious coincidence? Synergetics is full of such coincidences.
A similar example involves dropping a stone into a tank of water.
"The stone does not penetrate the water molecules," Fuller explains
in Synergetics, but rather "jostles the molecules," which in turn
"jostle their neighboring molecules" and so on. The scattered jostling, appearing chaotic in anyone spot, produces a precisely
organized cumulative reaction: perfect waves emanating in concentric circles.
Identical waves would be produced by dropping a stone in a tank
full of milk or kerosene (or any liquid of similar viscosity). A wave is
58
A Fuller Explanation
59
complex and ultimately eternal. No human being could ever completely describe such a pattern, as he can the overhand knot; that
capability is relegated to the "Greater Intellectual Integrity of Eternally Regenerative Universe.,,2
If we seem to stray from the subject of mathematics, resist the
temptation to categorize rigidly. Synergetics does not stop with
geometry. Fuller was deeply impressed by a definition in a 1951
Massachusetts Institute of Technology catalog, which read
"Mathematics is the science of structure and pattern in general"
(606.01): not games with numbers and equations, but the tools for
systematic analysis of reality. To Fuller this meant that mathematics
ought to enable the "comprehensivist" to see the underlying similarities between superficially disparate phenomena, which might be
missed by the specialist. Rope may not be much like water, but the
knot is like the wave-is like the tetrahedron.
Our emphasis thus far has been on pattern. What about structure?
Let's go back to the regular polyhedra. On constructing the five
shapes out of wooden dowels and rubber connectors, it is immediately apparent that some are stable and others collapse. The
"necklace" demonstrates that only triangles hold their shape, and so
the problem becomes quite simple.
Picture a cube. Better yet, make one out of dowels and rubber
tubing, or straws and string. Whatever material you choose, as long
as the joints are flexible, the cube will collapse. Connectors with a
certain degree of stiffness, such as marshmallows or pipec1eaners, are
misleading at first, because the cube appears to stand on its own.
However the shape is so easily rearranged by a slight push that the
illusion does not last.
The six unstable windows must be braced in order for a cube to be
rigid. So six extra struts, inserted diagonally across each face, would
be the minimum number that could stabilize the system.
Six struts? Just like a tetrahedron! And not only are there the right
number of struts, but they can also be arranged the same way. A
regular tetrahedron fits inside a cube with its six edges precisely
aligned across the cube's faces (Fig. 5-3). We can therefore state that
there is an implied tetrahedron in every stable cube. Nothing in our
investigation thus far would predict the precise fit of a cube and a
tetrahedron. This and many other examples of shared symmetry
among polyhedra (as seen in the previous chapter) are powerful
demonstrations of the order inherent in space.
If the cube is unstable without a scaffold of triangulation, what
about cardboard models? They stand up by themselves with no
trouble. The key word is cardboard. A polyhedron constructed out
60
A Fuiier Explanation
Fig. 5-3. Inscribed tetrahedron stabilizes cube.
61
shape! Language, caught in the old world of "solids," did not keep
up with science's evolving understanding of the true nature of
matter. In a universe consisting entirely of fast-moving energy, we
must ask how something holds its shape.
"Structure is defined as a locally regenerative pattern integrity of
Universe" (606.01). A good starting point. Structure is also "a
complex of events interacting to form a stable pattern." Similar, but
more specific: the pattern consists of action, not things.
"Regenerative" is an important qualification, because of the transient nature of energy. The pattern, not the energy flowing through,
has a certain degree of permanence. A structure must therefore be
continually regenerating in order to be detected.
Structure is "local" because it is finite; it has a beginning and an
end. "We cannot have a total structure of Universe" (606.01).
"Interacting" signifies the emphasis on relationships.
The phrase "complex of events" suggests an analogy to constellations, whose components-though spectacularly far apart-are
interrelated for some cosmic span of time, creating a set of relationships, in other words, a pattern. The seven stars of the Big Dipper
are light-years apart-the epitome of nonsimultaneous energy events.
They are only perceived as a meaningful pattern from a special
vantage point, Spaceship Earth. The remoteness of individual atoms
in any structure or substance-not to mention the distance between
atomic constituents-prompted Fuller to write "one of the deeply
impressive things about structures is that they cohere at all." There is
nothing" solid" about structure.
What do all structures have in common that allows their coherence?
Triangles. At the root of all stable complexes is nature's only
self-stabilizing pattern.
No Fuller study is complete without an "inventory": a list, not of
each and every "special case" example, but rather, of the types of
Table II"
Polyhedron
Tetrahedron
Octahedron
Icosahedron
Number of
Edges
Volume
6
12
30
0.11785
0.47140
2.1817
0.11785
0.2357
0.4363
x 0.11785,
x 0.11785.
0.2357
0.4363
3.70
62
A Fuller Explanation
63
64
A Fuller Explanation
6
Angular Topology
66
A Fuller Explanation
case") involves time and duration. 1 Real systems are events, and it
takes time for an event to occur. He bases his objection to purely
static concepts in mathematics on the fact that they are incompatible
with twentieth-century scientific thought:
Since the measure of light's relative swiftness, which is far from instantaneous,
the classical concepts of instant Universe and the mathematicians' instant lines have
become both inadequate and invalid for inclusion in synergetics. (201.02)
He insists upon nothing more adamantly than this distinctionbetween real ("experimentally demonstrable") phenomena and imaginary concepts. "Size" relates to real, time-dependent systems,
whereas "shape," influenced only by angle and therefore independent of time, is a factor in both real and conceptual systems.
[" Angles are ... independent of size. Size is always special-case experience" (515.14).]
But how does "frequency" apply to size and length? Frequency
connotes number: the number of times a repeating phenomenon
occurs within a specified interval-ordinarily an interval of time, but
Fuller extends the concept to include space. Length is measured in
synergetics in terms of frequency to underline the fact that the
"distance from here to there" involves time and can be specified in
terms of number: number of footsteps across the room, or number of
heartbeats during that interval, number of water molecules in a tube,
number of inches, number of photons, number of somethings. The
choice of increment depends on what is being measured, but
frequency (and hence size) is inescapably a function of time and
number.
Units of Measurement
6. Angular Topology
67
68
A Fuller Explanation
6. Angular Topology
69
70
A Fuller Explanation
(1) A measure of spatial extent. (2) Magnitude, size, scope. (3) The
number of factors in a mathematical term. (4) A physical property,
often mass, length, time, regarded as a fundamental measure. (5)
Any of the least number of independent coordinates required to
specify a point in space uniquely.
The above is a sampling of what you will find in English-language
dictionaries under "dimension." As you can see, there are a few
distinct meanings-essentially falling into three categories:
(1) Physical extent or measurement, as in "what are the dimensions
of this room"?
(2) Orders of complexity, in the most general sense, as in "the many
dimensions" of an issue or problem. This meaning is as common
as it is widely applicable.
(3) The specifically mathematical application: the number of independent terms required to specify a point in space. Our conventional system utilizes three independent, mutually perpendicular
axes in space to accomplish this task. This is often the first
meaning to occur to people, especially when already thinking
about geometry. "Space is three-dimensional." However, this
assignment- treating the third category as an exclusive definition-seemed unacceptably limited to Fuller. Exposure to the
ordered polyhedra of mathematics and also to organic structures
and crystals found in nature makes an orientation toward perpendicularity seem quite arbitrary. Although right angles are
sprinkled throughout geometric shapes, they are by no means
dominant. And, more often than one might expect, ninety-degree
coordinates provide an awkward framework with which to describe both naturally occurring and conceptual formations.
Fuller viewed the Cartesian coordinate system with its three
perpendicular axes, conventionally labeled X, Y, and Z, as a rem-
6. Angular Topology
71
72
A Fuller Explanation
-",.
9<:'.:-t
,
",b,"
Fuller's book takes a firm stand in the opening sections: "Synergetics originates in the assumption that dimension must be physical"
(200.02), meaning size. The declaration is soon reinforced: "There is
6. Angular Topology
73
Fig. 6-2
74
A Fuller Explanation
So, while he does justify his usage with this reference to the word's
flexibility, the clarification is obscured by the book's sequence. The
reader seeking a quick reason to dismiss Synergetics might focus on
Fuller's extravagant citation of other dimensions early in the book.
His apparent familiarity with" the fourth dimension" provides just
cause for suspicion; however, a simple change of article-from
"the" to "a fourth dimension" -gives the term a very different
effect.
Like most subjects in synergetics, "dimension" cannot be neatly
presented in one complete package; boundaries are never that clearly
6. Angular Topology
75
Angular Topology
76
A Fuller Explanation
Fig. 6-3
Fig. 6-4
6. Angular Topology
77
can be closed off into a system. This point is reached when you have
taken out exactly 720 degrees. It's a prerequisite to closure; there is
no leeway. To check, you can measure all the scraps that have been
taken out; the results are always the same: however irregular your
cuts or strange your resulting closed system, the total takeout must
be 720 degrees. This consistent total presents a generalized principle
for closed systems.
The surface angles of any tetrahedron (regular or not) also happen
to add up to 720 degrees. (Four triangles: 4 X 180 = 720.) Fuller
certainly isn't going to let that one slip by! The "difference between
the visibly definite system and the invisibly finite Universe [i.e.,
plane] is always exactly one finite invisible tetrahedron ... " (224.10).
Consider once again the variety of systems. This principle-a first
cousin of Euler's law-describes an extraordinary consistency. The
"720-degree excess" is an appropriate parallel to Euler's "constant
2" in that there are 720 degrees in two complete revolutions. Both
are counterintuitive: Euler's law reveals that the number of edges is
always exactly two less than the vertices plus faces, no matter how
complex the system, just as the angular "takeout" is 720 degrees
whether the surface angles themselves add up to a total of 720
degrees, as in the tetrahedron, or to 57,600 degrees, as in the
"four-frequency icosahedron." (Don't worry, that structure will be
explained below.) Table III shows the results for a few different
polyhedra, verifying the constant "excess" of 720 degrees.
Table III reveals another notable consistency: the sum of the
surface angles in every polyhedron is a multiple of the tetrahedron's
720 degrees (column 5). This calls to mind our earlier observation
that the number of edges in many ordered polyhedra is a multiple of
the tetrahedron's six. (Refer to Chapter 4.)
Table ill
Polyhedron
Tetrahedron
Octahedron
Icosahedron
Cube
Pent. Dodec.
VE
4f Icosa
1
Number of
vertices,
V
4
6
12
8
20
12
162
2
V x 360
3
Sum of
surface
angles
4
(Col. 2)
-(Col. 3)
5
(Col. 3)
/720
1,440
2,160
4,320
2,880
7,200
4,320
58,320
720
1,440
3,600
2,160
6,480
3,600
57,600
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
1
2
5
3
9
5
80
78
A Fuller Explanation
A complicated system such as the four-frequency icosahedron provides an especially good illustration of this remarkable consistency.
The structure is an irregular polyhedron with 320 triangular faces,
and is based on the symmetry of the icosahedron. Each icosahedral
triangle is replaced by sixteen new smaller triangles, producing the
total of 320 faces of this more or less spherical structure. Chapter 15
will describe the origin of high-frequency icosahedral enclosures in
detail, but for now, we can understand that the faces are irregular
triangles. As shown in Figure 6-5, most vertices join six triangles,
and we recall from Chapter 4 that if six sixty-degree angles meet,
they create a flat surface. Therefore, if six faces are to surround a
convex vertex of a polyhedron, their angular total must be less than
360 degrees-which produces the "angular takeout". Those interested in exploring how to calculate individual edge lengths and
surface angles can refer to Appendix A, "Chord Factors," and to
Appendix C for a list of additional sources; other readers should
simply be aware that the values will be highly irregular numbers.
Having noted that, to assure convexity, the surface angles must add
6. Angular Topology
79
80
A Fuller Explanation
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Fig. 6-6. (a) Surface angle; (b) dihedral angle ; (c) central angle ; (d) axial angle.
6. Angular Topology
81
"special-case" system. Data for any different size would then have to
be completely recalculated, step by step, from scratch. Central angles
give us data for the general case, applicable to any particular
realization of the same shape. In architecture, this allows us to build
a geodesic dome of any size from one set of central-angle calculations. A pocket calculator is all that is required to simply multiply
the desired radius by twice the sine of half the central angle. 4
An axial angle is the angle between the edge of a polyhedron and
an adjacent radius (Fig. 6-6d).
That finishes this chapter, but the subject of angle is never far
removed from any discussion in synergetics.
7
Vector Equilibrium
7. Vector Equilibrium
83
o
Fig. 7-1. Stable, metastable, and neutral equilibrium.
84
A Fuller Explanation
We periodically remind ourselves of the purpose behind this geometric journey. Trying to faithfully trace Bucky's footsteps, we seek to
isolate the "coordinate system of nature": how Universe is organized.
One of the essential parts of the mystery is how to account for
structural similarities between totally unrelated phenomena, vastly
different in both scale and material. The implication is that, rather
than being coordinated, things coordinate themselves. This selforganization occurs according to a set of physical forces or constraints, absolutely independent of scale or specific interactive forces.
In short, space shapes all that inhabits it.
But how? Through what vehicles does nature adhere to this
underlying order? Let's look at Fuller's fundamental operating assumption:
It is a hypothesis of synergetics that forces in both macrocosmic and microcosmic
structures interact in the same way, moving toward the most economic equilibrium
packings. By embracing all the energetic phenomena of total physical experience,
synergetics provides for a single coherent system of geometric principles .... (209.00)
7. Vector Equilibrium
85
Fig. 7-2
to spread out and slow down. The reverse action-of all the gas
molecules suddenly gathering in one half of a container-has never
been observed, just as in the living room disparate temperatures
equalize, but that room will never spontaneously become warm on
one side while the other side suddenly cools off. The closed-container
experiment is the classic model for illustrating nature's en tropic
tendencies. The Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906),
noted for his work in entropy theory, called the resulting dispersal
disorderly behavior. A geometer, however, might observe the individual gas molecules vying for the most room-accomplished of course
by a maximally symmetrical distribution-and not perceive such a
progression as disorder. Both perceptions call it equilibrium.
Spatial Considerations
86
A Fuller Explanation
GOO
000
: Q0W
000
QOO
000
Fig. 7-3. Triangular pattern enables one more row of cookies than square pattern
with the same minimum separation distance between cookies.
7. Vector Equilibrium
87
(a)
,,
'.
(b)
(d)
,
I
(c)
88
A Fuller Explanation
It is an unstable balance however, easily knocked out of equilibrium by a force from any other direction. Suppose that the
original two forces push on a body with equal strength from east and
west. A force from the north or south, even if smaller than the
east-west pair, can easily destroy that unstable equilibrium. So how
can we most efficiently insure the stability of the body in question?
Suppose instead that the forces are directed outwardly from the
body (Fuller's "explosive potential," as quoted in the first paragraph
of this chapter). To begin with, imagine four equal vectors, heading
north, south, east and west-that is, in the positive and negative
directions of the X and Y axes. To counteract the four explosive
forces, we need equivalent restraining forces ("implosive" or "embracing"). Fuller's "embracing" vectors are not technically part of
the conventional language of vectors. Having neither head nor tail,
their effect is simply restraining, like a net, and their magnitude is
still assumed to be represented by their length. As strength is
graphically depicted by vector-length, we soon find that there is no
easy way to draw four embracing vectors of unit length. In Figure
7-4b, the ends of our four explosive vectors are interconnected, but
these new lines are approximately 1.414 times as long as the outward
forces. The longer vector lines represent more powerful forces and
thus overpower the explosive potential, meaning that the whole
display must collapse inwardly.
We might then choose to add more outward forces, maintaining
symmetry by an additional unit vector in between each of the
original four (Fig. 7-4c). Now we have eight equal forces emanating
from one point, and the resulting eight embracing lines are only
0.765 times as long as the unit length-too small to restrain the
explosive forces. This imbalance leads to outward dispersal of the
hypothetical system.
The sought-after balance will be achieved by "omnisymmetry",
that is, maximum symmetry. The desired array must consist exclusively of unit-length vectors-both explosive and embracing.
One way to solve the problem is to picture a square grid of
"energy events," interconnected by vectors. Squares provide an easy
starting point because they make up the basic framework of current
mathematics: the XY coordinate system. As before, the length of
vectors which connect "events" represents the strength of their
interattraction. Because the distance between diagonal corners is
1.414 times the distance between adjacent loci, the attractive forces
represented are that much greater. Imbalance (or lack of equilibrium) in a diagram of forces represents motion. As a result of the
7. Vector Equilibrium
89
A "geometry of vectors," Fuller reasoned, must be "omnidirectionally operative" - hence, radially oriented and omnisymmetrical.
Following the planar example, we want some number of vectors
emanating from an origin, situated so that the distances between
vector end points (vertices) are not only all equal to each other, but
also exactly equal to the length of the radial vectors.
90
A Fuller Explanation
Fig. 7-5. Vector equilibrium.
7. Vector Equilibrium
91
Table IV
Unit-edge polyhedron
Tetrahedron
Octahedron
Icosahedron
Cube
Pent. dodecahedron
VE
Radius
Central
Angle
Axial
Angle
0.6124
0.7071
0.9511
0.8660
1.4012
1.0000
109.47
90.00
63.43
70.53
41.81
60.00
35.26
45.00
58.28
54.76
69.04
60.00
92
A Fuller Explanation
Fig. 7-7. Eight radiating tetrahedra alternate with six
half octahedra.
7. Vector Equilibrium
93
94
A Fuller Explanation
(a)
(b)
Fig. 7-9
forces, 120 degrees apart (Fig. 7-9a), and observe that the circle's
position is fixed. Actually, it turns out that only the location of the
exact center of the circle is fixed, for the disk is free to rotate slightly
in place. Because rotation involves motion directed at 90 degrees to
all three strings, there is nothing to restrain the circle from twisting
back and forth, as shown in Figure 7-9b. Three additional strings to
counteract each of the original restraints would have to be added to
prevent all motion, for a total of three positive and three negative
vectors.
In space, a similar procedure involves a bicycle wheel. Suppose
that our goal is to anchor the hub with a minimum of spokes. At first
glance this may appear to be the same problem as the previous
planar example; however, in this case, the hub has both width and
length. Both circular ends of the narrow hub-typically about a half
inch wide and 3 inches long-must be stabilized. With only six
spokes attaching the hub to the rim (three fixing the position of each
end, as shown in Figure 7-lOa), the system feels quite rigid; force can
be applied to the hub from any direction-up, down, back or forth
-without budging it. However, the hub has no resistence to an
applied torque, the effect of which occurs at ninety degrees to the
spokes, and is therefore able to twist slightly about its long axis.
Three more spokes at each end, to counterbalance the original six,
remove the remaining flexibility. All twelve degrees of freedom are
finally accounted for, with a minimum of twelve spokes (Fig. 7-10b).
This experiment is quite rewarding to experience-well worth
trying for yourself. You don't need to go as far as dismantling a
bicycle wheel; just find a hoop of any material and size and a short
7. Vector Equilibrium
(a)
95
(b)
dowel segment, and then connect the two with radial strings added
one at a time until the hub suddenly becomes rigidly restrained. It is
enormously satisfying to feel the hub become absolutely immobile
(all "freedom" taken away), with the surprisingly low number of
twelve spokes. 4
What both the planar and spatial procedures indicate is that
degrees of freedom are both positive and negative. In anchoring the
hub of the bicycle wheel, there at first appear to be six degrees of
freedom; however, each has a positive and negative direction. In
conclusion, degrees of freedom measure the extent of a system's
mobility: how many alternative directions of motion must be impeded
before the body in space is completely restrained. 5
The twelve vectors needed to restrain a body can also be
omnidirectional, instead of the basically planar organization of the
spoke wheel. Fuller takes us through a similar sequence in Synergetics, which starts with a ball attached to one string. The ball is free to
swing around in every direction; the only restraint is on the radial
"sweepout" distance. The ball's motion is thus free to describe a
spherical domain. The addition of a second string restricts the ball to
motion within a circular arc in a single plane (Fig. 7-11a). A third
string allows the ball to swing only back and forth, in a linear path.
The ball can always be pushed slightly out of place, no matter how
taut the three strings (Fig. 7-11b). And just as, in our search for the
minimum system, a fourth event suddenly created insideness and
outsideness, by adding a fourth string to the ball, its position is
suddenly fixed. (" Four-dimensionality" again.) In their most symmetrical array, the four strings go to the four vertices of an imaginary tetrahedron, and are therefore separated by approximately 109.47
degrees, the tetrahedron's central angle (Fig. 7-11c).
96
A Fuller Explanation
I
I
\ \
\ \
'I
~);
'
\
I
I
I
"
I
(a)
'.
(d)
Fig.7-11
(b)
(c)
\
\
(Y ")}\ /
/
~~./
J
I
I
I
I
~ r, -
i--L j \)"
,'- , ~
1(/\(
\ ( 1,
/
/
'
\
' I
7. Vector Equilibrium
97
But of course that's not the end of the story; the ball is still free to
twist in place. To prevent this slight rotation, three strings must be
attached to each location of the original four (Fig. 7-11d). This result
is related to the fact that three is the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify the location of a point in space, with
reference to the origin of a coordinate system.
The whole picture is falling into place. Every physical body has
four basic sides, or four corners: two points alone are only collinear,
and three are only coplanar; not until there are four corners can the
property of spatial existence be recognized. As a result, any physical
body must be held at four noncoplanar points, with three restraints
at each point, in order to be stabilized (Fig. 7-11d).
This result suddenly ties in to the earlier discussion of pattern
integrity. Triangles are necessary for stability. Therefore, while the
ball was seemingly held in place by four restraints, it could still
rotate locally because the locus of each individual restraint could not
be stable without triangulation-subsequently provided by the addition of three strings per locus.
Bucky explains the situation further. Consider the ball with the
original four restraints. The strings impinging on the ball create four
vertices without supplying the necessary six edges to stabilize their
position with respect to each other. They essentially form an unstable quadrilateral rather than a stable tetrahedron. The lesson is the
same. There are four fundamental corners in every system, and each
must be triangulated: 4 X 3 = 12. Thus there are twelve degrees of
freedom, tetrahedrally organized. Twelve is a frequently recurring
number in synergetics, a fundamental part of space and geometry, as
we shall see again and again.
The above procedure describes Fuller's own interpretation of
"degrees of freedom," which must be distinguished from Loeb's
analysis of the concept, as briefly explained in Chapter 5.
The introduction to vector equilibrium is now complete except for
one philosophical consideration. It is important to realize that the
whole discussion is about conceptual-never actual-balance; equilibrium in any physical form can only be an approximation. No
matter how exactly centered the hub of the bicycle wheel seems and
no matter how tight the spokes, gravity's pull on the hub will always
exert more tension on the upper spokes, leaving the lower spokes
ever so slightly slack and imperceptibly curved. The balance is
imperfect. Moreover, energetic motion never ceases. The air molecules in the living room do not stop their vigorous motion once the
98
A Fuller Explanation
7. Vector Equilibrium
99
8
Tales Told by the Spheres:
Closest Packing
101
Fig. 8-1
A sphere is the form of "omnisymmetry" in spatial reality. Symmetry describes the degree to which a system can be rearranged without
detectable change. The sphere's shape presents no corners, no angles
- in short, no landmarks-by which to detect rotation or reflection.
Its very shapelessness enables us to explore the shape of space.
Furthermore, the total absence of angular form makes the precisely
sculpted shapes generated by packing the identical" shapeless" units
together all the more surprising. It is easy to see that individual
spheres, as omnisymmetrical forms with neither surface angles nor
specific facets to mold the form of clusters, cannot determine through
their own shape the overall shape of packings. In conclusion, we are
not so much interested in the (" nondemonstrable") spheres themselves, as in using sphere-packing as a medium through which spatial
constraints can take visible shape.
102
A Fuller Explanation
103
Fig. 82
.",.-
....
,_ ..... /
\
I
104
A Fuller Explanation
Fig. 8-4. Cubic packing (top) versus hexagonal packing (bottom), showing three
layers of spheres in each packing.
105
(a)
(b)
Fig. 8-5. Hexagonal (left) versus cubic (right) : twelve spheres pack tightly around
one.
106
A Fuller Explanation
107
108
A Fuller Explanation
109
110
A Fuller Explanation
(a)
(b)
111
(c)
are still able to roll, but only inward or outward (toward or away
from the triangle's center, in tandem) "like a rubber doughnut," to
use Bucky's words. The freedom of motion of each sphere is thus
considerably more limited-spinning about one specific horizontal
axis instead of unrestrained motion in every direction.
A fourth ball rolls across the surfaces and lands comfortably in
the triangular nest. Suddenly, all four balls are locked into place,
unable to roll or move in any direction (Fig. 8-9c). This is the first
stable arrangement, with the requisite minimum of four. The tetrahedron is once again at the root of our investigation.
At this point, it may be illuminating to construct some of these
structures, for example with Styrofoam balls and toothpicks, or
small plastic beads and glue. One particularly satisfying demonstration involves bringing four spheres together and trying to create a
square. It is easy to feel how unstable that arrangement is: the balls
gravitate naturally toward the tight tetrahedral cluster. Fuller placed
considerable emphasis on the benefits of hands-on construction to
gain thorough familiarity.
The theme of Fuller's tetrahedral sphere packings is the presence
or absence of nuclei. The word "nucleus" evokes the image of a
central ball spatially surrounded by other balls, which is exactly the
way Fuller uses it for the VE packings. However, his observations
about tetrahedral patterns are based on a somewhat different approach. Most of the inpenetrability of the sphere-packing sections in
Synergetics can be removed with one simple clarification: a "nucleus"
in VE packings is defined as a ball at the geometrical center of the
whole cluster, whereas a "nucleus" in tetrahedral stacks is a ball at
the exact center of an individual planar layer.
Start with the four-ball tetrahedron developed above, which consists of a fourth ball added to a triangle of three others. Next, the
simple four-ball tetrahedron is placed on top of a flat six-ball
112
A Fuller Explanation
Fig. 8-10
"
Gi!IJ
- -:
- , -:: . ...;7 ,
~-
triangular base, creating a tetrahedron with three balls per edge (Fig.
8-10). There are three layers, with ten balls altogether- six plus
three plus one. Throughout his sphere-packing studies, Fuller uses
the number of tangency points per edge (in other words, the number
of spaces between spheres along an edge of the cluster, rather than
the number of spheres) for the assignment of frequency. The four-ball
tetrahedron is thus "one-frequency" (as is appropriate for the first
case), and the next case, the ten-ball tetrahedron, is "two-frequency."
We can visualize that each sphere-cluster polyhedron corresponds to
a line drawing (or toothpick structure) in which the spheres' centers
loca te vertices which are interconnected by lines (or toothpick edges)
through tangency points. Recalling that "frequency" is defined as
the number of modular subdivisions, the justification for Fuller's
frequency assignment is evident from this translation, because the
number of subdivisions (or line segments) per edge corresponds to
the number of spaces between spheres, rather than to the spheres
themselves, which correspond directly to the vertices (Fig. 8-10) .
Triangular clusters, each with one more row than the last, are
stacked to create larger and larger tetrahedral packings. We place the
ten-ball (two-frequency) tetrahedron on top of the next triangular
base, which itself consists of ten balls, to get a three-frequency
tetrahedron, with twenty spheres altogether (Fig. 8-10). We have thus
begun a list of values that might be called tetrahedral numbers:
4, 10,20, followed by 20 plus the additional triangular layer of 15, to
total 35 (Fig. 8-11). The progression can be continued indefinitely.
Consider the different individual layers. There is a ball in the
exact geometric center of some of the triangular groups, while others,
having three balls around the exact center instead, are left with a
central nest. Successive triangular clusters reveal a specific pattern :
every third layer has a central ball, or nucleus. Fuller describes this
progression as a "yes-no-no-yes-no-no" pattern. To see how it
works, let's look at the first few members of the sequence. One ball
113
Fig. 8-11
114
A Fuller Explanation
(notice that "N" can stand for "nest" as well as for "no"):
415.55 Nucleus and Nestable Configurations in Tetrahedra: In any number of
successive planar layers of tetrahedrally organized sphere packings, every third
triangular layer has a sphere at its centroid (nucleus.)
(a)
115
(c)
(b)
Fig. 8-13
116
A Fuller Explanation
triangle must still be added; eight more spheres are therefore needed
to complete the enveloping layer. 96 minus 12 plus 8 yields a total of
92 balls.
The next shell (four-frequency) requires 162 balls; the fivefrequency layer consists of 252, six of 362, and so on. We are now
able to detect a pattern by looking carefully at these numbers:
12,42,92,162,252,362, .... It will come as no surprise to the observant student of numbers to learn that the next shell consists of
492 balls.
What exactly is going on? To begin with, we notice the consistent
last digit: every single number ends with 2, reminiscent of Euler's
law and its "constant 2." Fuller interprets this persistent "excess of
2" in radial sphere packing as further affirmation of the inevitable
"poles of spinnability," inherent in the topology of singly closed
systems. And indeed, the temptation to embrace a single explanation
is strong. The fact that the number of spheres per shell always ends
with the digit 2-even though those numbers increase drastically
with each successive layer-seems too strange to ignore; we want an
explanation for nature's behavior. But at this stage, speculation as to
significance is a sidetrack: our task is to fully describe the configurations. As soon as we fully understand the patterns and are thus
armed with the facts, such speculation will be appropriate and
indeed inevitable.
After observing the reliable last digit, we can simplify our sequence-following Fuller's procedure-by subtracting the 2 from
each term, removing the distraction to assist further analysis. Weare
left with 10,40,90,160,250,360,490, ... , all divisible by 10. So let's
divide by 10. This leaves 1,4,9,16,25,36,49, ... , and now the
pattern is clear.
The latter sequence is generated by p, for / = 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, ....
We choose "/" in this case, to represent frequency, for it turns out
that the relationship between frequency and number of units per
shell can be directly specified. Nature thus reveals yet another
"generalized principle." This equation actually describes a straightforward edge-Iength-to-surface-area relationship, exactly what we
expect from geometry-in a slightly different format.
The next question is how to specify the relationship in precise
terms. We work in reverse from our final sequence (f = 1,2,3,4, ... )
to generate the original sequence. First we must raise the frequency /
to the second power, then multiply each term by 10, and then add 2:
10/ 2 + 2 therefore gives us the total number of spheres for any shell
(specified by frequency) in nuclear sphere packings.
117
Icosahedron
118
A Fuller Explanation
119
Fig. 8-15
for reasons which will be explained below, the shell must be able to
self-assemble-that is, build and rebuild itself automatically, (3)
maximum symmetry is advantageous to minimize the energy required for attractive bonds between the capsid molecules, and (4) the
arrangement must be stable, which means triangulated.
The elegance of the relationship between structure and function is
well documented in modern biology, and the isometric virus is no
exception; its structure must be suited to its specific functions. A
tough shell is to completely enclose minute amounts of genetic
material-quantities necessarily insufficient for carrying detailed
bonding instructions-yet it must easily disassemble and reassemble
itself in order to release the viral genetic material into a host cell.
The overall structure must therefore be dictated by properties of the
subunits and by the constraints of space itself-both criteria also
establishing a built-in check system.
A sphere, which maximizes the volume-to-surface-area ratio, is the
key to an efficient solution. Interconnected molecules, which can
only approximate that theoretical sphere, will achieve a spherical
distribution most efficiently through icosahedral symmetry. Observations of isometric viruses have consistently revealed icosahedral
patterns, thus reconfirming that nature chooses optimal designs. 4 We
shall study this configuration in more detail in Chapter 15.
120
A Fuller Explanation
121
Fig. 8-16
The essence of precession, to Fuller, is 90. And indeed, the counterintuitive or mysterious thing about the behavior of gyroscopes (and
other examples of precession in physics) is the resultant motion in a
direction ninety degrees away from that of an applied force. For
example if a downward force is imposed at the north point of a
122
A Fuller Explanation
Fig. 8-17
123
Fig.8-18a
Fig.8-18b
124
A Fuller Explanation
beyond the natural assumption that the two halves must approach
each other directly-as if one half were approaching its own reflection in a mirror. What actually has to occur of course is that one half
rotates 90 degrees with respect to the other (interprecessing) and the
two rectangles mesh together perfectly, at right angles. "Wow!"
Bucky would exclaim, apparently as surprised as his audience. The
surprise is genuine in a sense, for the result is visually striking even if
one already knows the answer: a perfect tetrahedron, eight balls per
edge, or seven-frequency (Fig. 8-18b.)
Along the same lines, we now look at 60-degree twists. An
especially pleasing example involves two simplest triangles, of three
spheres each. The triangles face each other directly; then one rotates
60 degrees before pushing them together, and the result is an
octahedron. The six spheres are precisely situated as octahedron
vertices, framing eight triangles. (Refer back to Fig. 8-7.)
Next, let's take two eighth-octahedron seven-ball sets (the six-ball
triangle with a seventh ball in the central nest). The two triangular
bases of each cluster face each other, and then one is rotated 60
degrees, allowing the triangles to come together as a six-pointed star,
and suddenly the fourteen balls become a cube! This is the minimum
stable cube formed out of spheres (Fig. 8-19). Eight spheres alone,
Fig. 8-19
125
positioned as the eight corners of the cube, are not closepacked, and
that configuration would therefore be unstable, as the spheres have a
tendency to roll into the unoccupied valleys.
In fact, just as a floppy toothpick cube needed six extra diagonal
sticks (the six edges of a tetrahedron) to stabilize the square faces,
eight balls also require an additional six, to complete a stable cube.
Thus we have fourteen balls altogether: a parallel to the fourteen
topological parameters (vertices plus edges plus faces) of the tetrahedron. The cube in every stable form seems to be based on an
implied tetrahedron.
126
A Fuller Explanaiion
9
Isotropic Vector Matrix
128
A Fuller Explanation
(a)
(b)
Fig. 9-2. (a) Single row of alternating tetrahedra and octahedra. (b) Planar expanse
of alternating tetrahedra and octahedra.
129
However, this does not mean that adjacent cub octahedra pack
together to produce a space-filling expanse. A symmetrical array can
be created by bringing the square faces of adjacent vector equilibria
together, but they are necessarily separated by octahedral
cavities- framed by the triangular faces of eight converging YEs.
The unavoidable octahedra between adjacent YEs provide yet another
manifestation of the specificity of the shape of space. This array can
be readily understood by observing in Figure 9-4 that a packing of
vector equilibria is equivalent to a framework of cubes in which the
corners have been chopped off, thus automatically carving out an
octahedral cavity at every junction of eight boxes.
The above observations provide information about the shapes and
angles of the IVM - the most symmetrical arrangement of points in
space-and therefore about the shape of space itself. These characteristics reveal the basis for the term "isotropic vector matrix": in
Fuller's words,
"isotropic" meaning" everywhere the same," "isotropic vector" meaning" everywhere the same energy conditions." . .. This state of omnisameness of vectors .. . prescribes an everywhere state of equilibrium." (420.01-3)
130
A Fuller Explanation
"three-dimensional." Vectors are directed in every possible direction, while deliberately maintaining equivalent lengths and angles.
This equivalence is necessarily determined by the symmetry of
space:
This matrix constitutes an array of equilateral triangles that corresponds with the
comprehensive coordination of nature's most economical, most comfortable, structural interrelationships employing 60-degree association and disassociation. (420.01)
Imagine one vertex within the IVM framework, which will be called
O-for origin. A unit vector (L = 1) pointing in any of the twelve
directions away from 0 ends at a vertex which we shall call A . A
(a)
l31
(b)
132
A Fuller Explanation
(a)
(b)
'
(d)
(c)
Fig. 9-6. (a) Tetrahedra do not fit together. (b) Tetrahedra rearranged vertex to
vertex. (c) A secord row of tetrahedra is placed above the first, such that all
tetrahedra meet vertex to vertex; the arrangement automatically creates octahedral
cavities. (d) Alternating tetrahedra and octahedra can fill space indefinitely.
l33
A Complete Picture
134
A Fuller Explanation
Fig. 9-7. Half octahedra shown without tetrahedral edges, to emphasize a square crosssection of the IVM.
Angles
Fig. 9-8
135
(a)
(b)
Fig. 9-9. (a) Truncation of three-frequency (3u) regular tetrahedron. (b) Truncation
of 3u regular octahedron, showing only external surface of system.
136
A Fuller Explanation
137
Polyhedra
We now observe considerable expansion of our inventory of generated shapes. Starting with the most familiar, we isolate the minimum
cube. Formed by a single tetrahedron embraced by four neighboring
eighth-octahedral pyramids, or octants, the cube is once again based
on the tetrahedron. We first encountered this relationship in "Structure and Pattern Integrity" (using the tetrahedron to establish the
minimum stable cube), and now we have determined the exact shape
of the leftover space: four eighth-octahedra. This observation indicates that "degenerate stellation" of the tetrahedron forms a cube.
The four vertices of the tetrahedron, together with the four centers of
neighboring octahedra, provide the eight corners of this basic building block. Its six square faces are created by two adjacent quarters of
the square cross-sections of single-frequency octahedra (Fig. 9-11).
As with other IVM systems, larger and larger cubes will be outlined
by more remote octahedron centers.
Next, we embrace a single octahedron by eight quarter tetrahedra,
thereby outlining the rhombic dodecahedron, whose twelve diamond
faces have obtuse angles of 10928' and acute angles of
70 0 32'-generated by the tetrahedral central angle and two adjacent
axial angles, respectively. Its eight three-valent vertices are the centers
of embracing tetrahedra, while its six four-valent vertices are the
original octahedron vertices (Fig. 9-12). Once again, we observe the
relationship of duality between the VE and rhombic dodecahedron.
The former has fourteen faces (six four-sided and eight three-sided)
corresponding to the four-valent vertices and three-valent vertices of
the latter. Likewise, the twelve four-valent VE vertices line up with
the twelve rhombic faces. (Refer to Fig. 4-14.)
138
A Fuller Explanation
Octa
Cross-section
Domain
The duality between VE and rhombic dodecahedron illustrates the
relationship of duality and domain. Having already seen that spheres
in closest packing outline the vertices of the VE, we now turn our
attention to the domain of individual spheres. 2 The domain of a
sphere is defined as the region closer to a given sphere's center than
to the center of any other sphere. This necessarily includes the
sphere itself, as well as the portion of its surrounding gap that is
closer to that sphere than to any other. Imagine a point at the exact
center of an interstitial gap; this will be the dividing point between
neighboring domains, that is, a vertex of the polyhedron outlined by
the sphere's domain. This domain polyhedron happens to be the
rhombic dodecahedron. As each sphere in cubic packing is by
definition identically situated, each domain must be the same. Therefore, the shape of this region consistently fits together to fill space.
Fuller's term for the rhombic dodecahedron is "spheric" because of
this relationship to spheres in closest packing.
139
We now have an experiential basis for the VE- rhombic-dodecahedron duality. Twelve vectors emanate from any point in the IVM,
locating the vertices of the VE, while poking through the center of
the twelve diamond faces which frame the point's domain. We were
introduced to duality as exact face-to-vertex correspondence, and
now we see how duals can be instrumental in locating a system's
domain. Our investigation of space-filling in Chapter 12 will explore
this relationship more fully.
Returning to the IVM, we observe that four rhombic dodecahedra,
or "spherics," come together at the center of each tetrahedron, such
that the tetrahedron central angle becomes the obtuse surface angle
of the spheric. In the same way, eight cubes meet at the center of
each octahedron, as allowed by the shared 90-degree surface and
central angles, respectively.
For clarity, we shall refer to the new network, interconnecting the
centers of all octahedral and tetrahedral cells, as IVM', and we can
draw the following conclusion. If the vertices of a given polyhedron
are located in the IVM, then that system's dual will be outlined by
the IVM', and vice versa. Similarly, if a polyhedron is centered on a
140
A Fuller Explanation
vertex of the IVM, its dual will be centered on a vertex in IVM'. For
example, we recall our first case of duality: the vertices of the
octahedron's dual, the cube, are supplied by octahedron centers,
which are nodes of IVM'.
This discovery leads us to another assumption. As truncation of
our familiar polyhedra yields shapes contained within the IVM, the
dual operation, stellation, should produce polyhedra outlined by
IVM'. The assumption is valid: the additional IVM' vertices provide
the loci for the vertices of stellated versions of these basic shapes.
Actually, this observation is not new, for we have already seen that
quarter-tetrahedral pyramids affixed to octahedron faces produce
Fuller's spheric, or, in other words, that a degenerately stellated
octahedron becomes a rhombic dodecahedron. The three-valent
vertices of this diamond faceted shape are tetrahedron centers, by
definition nodes of IVM'.
Framework of Possibility
141
Struts can be all one length, thus simplifying construction, while the
minimal volume-to-material ratio inherent in the geometry of the
tetrahedron4 maximizes resistance to external loads. The intrinsic
stability of triangulation together with efficient dispersal makes this
142
A Fuller Explanation
The octet truss takes the conceptual matrix into physical realization,
and thus embodies Fuller's design science concept of using geometric
principles to human advantage.
We can now appreciate the difference between diamond and
graphite. Both consisting of carbon atoms, the former is exquisitely
hard and clear, the latter soft and grey, and their differences are due
to geometry. Carbon atoms in the structure of diamond take advantage of the strength of tetrahedra; their organization can be
thought of as a double octet truss, two intersecting matrices with the
vertices of one overlapping the cells of the other. Stabilized by the
high number of bonds between neighboring atoms, which also allow
forces to be distributed in many directions at once, the configuration
is supremely invulnerable. In contrast, carbon atoms in graphite are
organized into planar layers of hexagons-triangulated and stable in
themselves, but not rigidly connected to other layers. As a result,
separate layers are able to shift slightly with respect to each other,
which does not mean that graphite lacks all stability, but rather that
it is relatively soft. This softness enables graphite to leave visible
residue on the surface of paper, thus performing its useful function
in pencils. A more illustrative although less widely recognized application is that these sliding layers make graphite a powerful lubricant.
The comparison provides a spectacular example of synergy: rearrangement of identical constituents produces two vastly different
systems.
Thus we see that nature also employs design science.
10
Multiplication by Division:
In Search of Cosmic Hierarchy
mathematics" while investigating the symmetrical properties of various polyhedra in the previous chapter. Recall that "operational"
indicates an emphasis on procedure and experience: what to do to
develop and transform models or systems. "Multiplication by division" brings us back to experience, introducing an operational
strategy, which will add new meaning to Fuller's term "intertransformabilities." We thus elaborate on the shared symmetries among
shapes while discovering new transformations from one to another,
and this time previous experience allows us to anticipate results.
Multiplication by division describes Bucky's journey through our
expanding polyhedral inventory. Previous exposure to both Loeb's
work and the IVM sets the stage, making us so familiar with these
shapes that additional results can be immediately placed in context.
The transformations explored in this chapter occur within the IVM
frame of reference, adding volume relationships to our accumulated
information about topology and symmetry. You may be surprised to
find that many statements seem obvious at this point; resist the
temptation to dismiss them as trivial. Appreciate instead the implication - which is that we cannot take a wrong turn. Each step is
inherently tied to the shape of space; we can only uncover what is
already there.
Volume
144
A Fuller Explanation
145
Cube
Unit Edge
Unit Diagonal
Tetrahedron
0.11785
0.47140
0.33333
1.33333
0.35356
0.70710
2.35700
2
6.66666
6
20
146
A Fuller Explanation
147
(b)
(a)
Fig. 10-1
Before looking more closely at volume ratios, we review the following mathematical generalization. No matter what unit of measurement is employed, the volume of any container is mathematically
proportional to a typical linear dimension raised to the third power.
This means that if we have two geometrically similar polyhedra, one
with twice the edge length of the other, the larger will contain exactly
eight times the volume of the smaller. (Having the same shape, the
two systems will share a common "constant.")
To bring this mathematical law into experiential grasp, we consider two familiar shapes. It is easy to visualize that a cube of edge
length 2 consists of eight unit cubes (Fig. 10-2). Now imagine a
tetrahedron of edge length 2. Observe in Figure 10-3 that, just like its
cubic counterpart, the altitude of a two-frequency tetrahedron is two
148
A Fuller Explanation
1
Fig. 10-3
times that of a unit tetrahedron, and similarly that each face subdivides into four unit triangles. The latter observation indicates that
the area of the large tetrahedron's base is four times that of the small
tetrahedron's unit-triangle base. Emulating the approach employed
by Loeb in his "Contribution to Synergetics,,,l we can deduce the
following, simply by utilizing traditional geometric formulae.
Let VOlT and Volt represent the volumes of the large (twofrequency) and small (unit-length) tetrahedra; AT and AI' the areas
of their bases: and HT and HI' their altitudes.
According to the formula
volume of pyramid
So
VolT
constant
KATHT
(area of base)
and Volt
height.
KAtHI'
and since we observed in Figure lO-2b that the base of the large
tetrahedron is divided into four triangles, each of which is equal to
the base of the small one, it is clear that AT = 4A t Similarly, the
altitude of the larger pyramid is twice that of the smaller, or
HT = 2Ht Substituting, we have
VOlT = K X 4A t X 2Hl'
or
and since
it follows that
VOlT
8 Vol I'
or, in words, that the volume of the big tetrahedron is eight times
that of the little tetrahedron. The constant K cancels out of the
149
Multiplication by Division
Multiplication occurs only through progressive fractionation of the original
complex unity of the minimum structural systems of Universe: the tetrahedron.
(100.102b)
Instead of starting with parts-points, straight lines, and planes-and then
attempting to develop these inadequately definable parts into omnidirectional
experience identities, we start with the whole system in which the initial
"point" ... inherently embraced all of its parameters ... all the rules of operational
procedure are always totally observed." (488.00)
150
A Fuller Explanation
Fig. 10-4
151
152
A Fuller Explanation
Fig. 10-6. The altitude of an octant is equal to one-half the altitude of the
tetrahedron.
-Fig. 10-7. Four octants added to one tetrahedron produce one cube.
153
Fig. 10-8
154
A Fuller Explanation
Multiplication by Division
Bisecting the edges, as before, we take special note of the tetrahedron's square cross-section. This fourfold symmetry was a significant factor in previous discussions, notably in the sphere-packing
demonstration, in which two sets of spheres came together at 90
degrees and unexpectedly produced a tetrahedron. However, this
aspect of the tetrahedron is easily overlooked; as a triangular pyramid, with its preponderance of 60-degree angles, this shape is easily
perceived as a completely triangular affair.
155
(b)
(a)
Fig. 10-9
156
A Fuller Explanation
(a)
(c)
Fig. 10-10
Fig. IO-ll
157
"The Cosmic Hierarchy is comprised of the tetrahedron's intertransformable interrelationships" (lOOA03b). Fuller's curious description
is now clear, for we have become familiar with most of these
"intertransformable relationships" and how they fit into the IVM
context-as well as with the simple operations that transform one
shape into another.
The order of this polyhedral hierarchy is determined by complexity, from least to most. It is worth noting that the ladder can extend
inward indefinitely by progressive subdivision; edges can be continually bisected to generate higher frequency systems. Notice how
convenient it is to have "conceptuality independent of size." We do
not have to specify the size of the initial tetrahedron, for Fuller's use
of frequency to designate length provides a means to specify the
system's geometric characteristics precisely, without recourse to
"special case" examples. Ratios remain consistent; like conceptuality, they are independent of size.
In summation, "cosmic hierarchy" pertains to volume ratios as
well as to complexity and frequency, and its relationships are uncovered through "multiplication by division." In this way, Fuller
describes the order inherent in space.
Volume Reconsidered
158
A Fuller Explanation
11
Jitterbug
160
A Fuller Explanation
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Fig. H t
11. Jitterbug
161
Now, simply lower the top triangle toward its opposite triangle
(i.e., toward the table) without allowing either one to rotate. The first
surprise is that the equator seems to be twisting, despite your careful
avoidance of rotation. If you pull the triangle back out and try it
again, you will see that this equatorial twist can go in either direction; in fact the system can oscillate back and forth, going through
the zero point, or equilibrium, every time.
Secondly, although you are only pushing on one direction (forcing
the triangle toward the table) the entire system contracts symmetrically-like a round balloon slowly deflating. Apparently, the effects
of your unidirectional force are omnidirectional. You can see and
feel that although you push and pull along a single line the contraction and expansion are both uniformly spherical.
Focus on the square windows, because only squares can change;
triangles hold their shape. As the top triangle approaches the bottom
triangle, each square compresses slightly, becoming a fat diamond,
and the dance has begun. The radius of the system is now slightly
shorter than the length of its twenty-four edges (vector equilibrium
no longer). The dance continues as the top triangle approaches the
bottom triangle and the diamonds grow slightly narrower, reaching
the point at which their width is exactly equal to the edge length
(Fig. ll-lb). The VE has thus turned into an icosahedron-at least
the shape of an icosahedron-but we don't stop to add the six extra
sticks across the diamond windows to complete the picture, for that
would turn our jitterbug into a stable structure.
Instead, keep going: past the icosahedral stage, the diamonds, ever
thinner, soon become narrow slits and finally snap shut (Fig. ll-lc, d).
The dance comes to a halt in the form of an octahedron. Twenty-four
sticks have come together into twelve pairs, creating a double-edge
octahedron (Fig. ll-ld).
This contraction is continuous, and so there are countless slightly
different stages, but only three are significant geometric shapes. The
jitterbug is of interest primarily because of its surprising flow from
one polyhedron into another; the emphasis is on its motion. However, we do want to be familiar with its geometric check-points.
First, the vector equilibrium. Unit-vector edges are balanced by
unit-length radii. When the system contracts to the icosahedral
position, the distances between each vertex and its five neighboring
vertices are suddenly the same-unlike the VE, in which each vertex
has only four nearest neighbors, each one the unit distance away,
while two additional neighbors are approximately 1.414 units away,
162
A Fuller Explanation
(a)
(b)
Fig. 11-2
11. Jitterbug
163
The icosahedron however refuses to cooperate. Its volume of approximately 18.51 is not as appealing as the whole-number ratios
shared by the other stopping points. litterbug now introduces a
rationale. The icosahedron is a phase that falls in between octahedron and vector equilibrium, rather than a definitive stopping
point in the flow. The jitterbug is a continuous transformation
through countless transitional stages, both regular and not, and at
certain intervals an ordered polyhedron emerges. Found when the
jitterbug is simply open as far as possible, the cuboctahedron is
definitive, absolute zero. The octahedron clicks into place when six
164
A Fuller Explanation
Accordingly, its volume does not fit into the "cosmic hierarchy" of
rational systems.
Single Layer versus IVM
11. Jitterbug
165
Fives
Fivefold symmetry dominates the icosahedron, distinguishing it once
again from the cosmic hierarchy, with three-, four-, and sixfold
rotational symmetries. This is another sign of the icosahedron's
nonconformism. It's full of fives: to begin with, the obvious five
triangles around each vertex, determining the symmetry about each
of its long axes. Then, its thirty edges fall into five sets of six
orthogonal edges, that is, three parallel pairs of mutually perpendicular edges. Figure 11-3a highlights the five distinct sets of orthogonal
edges. l (The edges can also be grouped into sets of five parallel edges
(a)
(b)
Fig. 11-3. (a) Five sets of six edges: each set of six consists of three mutually
perpendicular pairs. (b) Connecting midpoints of one set of six edges outlines a
regular octahedron.
166
A Fuller Explanation
embracing the equator, in six different directions.) Joining the midpoints of the six edges of one set displayed in Figure 11-3a, we
discover an octahedron hiding inside-implicit in the icosahedral
symmetry-in one of five possible orientations (Fig. 11-3b). The
icosahedron may be out of phase with the rest of the IVM family,
but it displays many significant relationships to these other shapes,
which, being unexpected, are all the more fascinating to uncover. A
few examples will be given below, and there's always room for
further exploration. Just as in our earlier development of the cosmic
hierarchy, we investigate how various shapes fit inside each other,
and thereby learn about similarities in shape, volume, and valency.
Whereas the cosmic-hierarchy relationships are consistently
straightforward and balanced (just bisect edges and connect midpoints to generate the next shape), whenever the icosahedron is
introduced, more intricate connections emerge. We therefore have to
look somewhat harder to find these new relationships which highlight the icosahedron's transitional role in the hierarchy.
We saw how the octahedron emerges out of the arrangement of
icosahedral edges, on the inside, and now we reverse the situation.
The icosahedron can be oriented so that eight of its twenty faces are
coplanar with and flush against the eight faces of a surrounding
octahedron, while the twelve icosahedral vertices are located on its
twelve edges. However, the icosahedron must sit in a skew (or
twisted) position, with its vertices intersecting the octahedral edges
off center, dividing each edge into two segments, the longer l.618
times the length of the shorter. This asymmetry means that there are
two distinct orientations of the icosahedron inside the octahedronpositive and negative, as shown in Figure 11-4a, b.
The ratio l.618 to 1, known as the "golden section," might have
played a prominent role in synergetics, for it shows up frequently
(a)
(b)
Fig. 11-4
11. Jitterbug
167
168
A Fuller Explanation
1.618 . ..
f
1
times the length of the shorter (Fig. 11-6). Ever reliable, the golden
section reinforces our awareness of the underlying order in space.
Pentagonal Dodecahedron
k--
,--\
_ _ ' .6'8 ~
.
11. Jitterbug
169
dodecahedron is of course also out of phase with the IVM, for its
symmetry scheme is the same as that of its dual, the icosahedron.
Four Dimensions
Back to the jitterbug. Fuller proposes that this fluid transition from
stage to stage is best described as four-dimensional:
The vector-equilibrium model displays four-dimensional hexagonal central cross
section ... . (966.04)
Four-dimensionality evolves in omnisymmetric equality of radial and chordal
rates of convergence and divergence . . .. (966.02)
170
A Fuller Explanation
Complex of Jitterbugs
In an isotropic vector matrix, adjacent vector equilibria create octahedral cavities; to fill space the two polyhedra must occur in equal
numbers. Contemplating this alternating array in light of the VE's
jitterbug behavior, Fuller suspected that a complex of jitterbugs
could be synchronized to twist and contract, while their octahedral
counterparts simultaneously expand, twisting open into YEs. It is an
extraordinarily difficult vision to conjure up in the mind's eye: an
array of synchronized twisting triangles- transforming from order
to chaotic inscrutability and then back into order-but with all the
places switched. YEs become octahedra; octahedra become YEs.
The ease of confirming the jitterbugging of one VE does little
toward answering the question of whether a number of interconnected jitterbugs can coordinate to create this dynamic labyrinth.
Would additional YEs packed around a single one serve to lock it in
place? The question is difficult to answer without actually putting it
to the test with the aid of a model-an awesome task. Thanks to an
ingeniously designed four-valent universal joint 3 to accommodate
the intricate twisting of adjacent triangular plates, a magnificent
sculpture has emerged after considerable speculation. A movable
complex of stainless steel and aluminum triangles hinged together
effectively demonstrates that the convoluted transformation is possible (Photo. 11-1). This translation from abstract mathematical concept to physical manifestation of the motion is both an engineering
and an aesthetic feat.
Fuller proposes that this complex of pulsing jitterbugs demonstrates the effects of a force propagating through space-a tangible
display of otherwise invisible energy events:
1032.20 Energy Wave Propagation: '" You introduce just one energy
action-push or pull-into the field, and its inertia provides the reaction to your
push or pull; the resultant propagates the ... omni-intertransformations whose comprehensive synergetic effect in tum propagates an omnidirectional wave. (1032.20)
11. Jitterbug
171
172
A Fuller Explanation
expanding, four-dimensional counterpart of the planar water waves' circular expansion. (lO32.20)
11. Jitterbug
(a)
(b)
173
(c)
Fig. 11-8
Finally, we break another of the bonds. "Single-bonded" tetrahedra are joined by a vertex, and their behavior is analogous to that
of a gas. The vertex bond acts as a universal joint; the two halves can
swing freely with respect to each other, moving together and apart
without disrupting the type of bond (Fig. 11-8c). The arrangement is
compressible, expandable, and completely flexible-short of dissociation. Perpetual connectedness indicates that both tetrahedra continue to participate in the same substance; they exhibit a consistent
relationship, but lack structural definition:
Tetrahedra linked together entirely by ... single-bonded universal jointing use
lots of space, which is the openmost condition of flexibility and mutability characterizing the behavior of gases. (931.60)
The analogy is complete. All the while, Bucky holds the simple
structures in his hands, and explains the different basic properties of
solids, liquids, and gases. With any luck, a small child is present,
forcing him to keep his discourse simple. How can the same type of
molecule produce such radically different substances? Bucky offers a
tangible explanation through geometry. This model is perhaps useful
as a mnemonic device-an easy way to remember the chemistry
174
A Fuller Explanation
12
"All-Space" Filling:
New Types of Packing Crates
Fuller in his characteristic drive for verbal accuracy updates geometry's conventional term "space filling" with his own more descriptive
(and predictably longer) "all-space filling." Here's the puzzle: which
of the polyhedra introduced so far can pack together in such a way
that all available volume is occupied without any gaps?
The concept is not new; ever since closepacking equiradius spheres,
we have danced around the issue of space filling, and in the process
made most of the discoveries that this chapter will expand upon. The
IVM disclosed certain space fillers, while making it clear that other
polyhedra did not share this ability. However, filling all space now
becomes the focus of our investigation, calling for the systematic
analysis that enables new insights and a more thorough understanding.
Despite its obvious applicability, space filling is not emphasized in
Fuller's work. An ability to "fill all space" is generally mentioned as
further description of a given polyhedron rather than providing an
investigative starting point for synergetics. Fuller's "operational"
approach encourages more experimental exercises, such as packing
spheres together, which then lead to space fillers after the fact.
In view of our overall goal of researching the characteristics of
space, what could be more logical than to ask what fits into it? What
shapes are accommodated by space? The notion that space is not a
passive vacuum gradually becomes second nature; experience has
changed our awareness. Now we want to become ever more exact
about these active properties. The existence of an extremely limited
group of polyhedra that can pack together to fill all space is one of
the more direct illustrations of the specificity of spatial characteristics.
The puzzle is quite challenging. Without actually making a horde
of tiny cardboard models of the polyhedra in question, these spatial
configurations are extraordinarily difficult to visualize-with the sole
exception of the obvious space filler, an array of cubes. Once again,
176
A Fuller Explanation
177
(a)
(b)
Fig. 12-1
178
A Fuller Explanation
gether, the two shapes can fill space indefinitely. None of this is new
information: we discovered the complementarity of octahedra and
tetrahedra while exploring isometric arrays of both spheres and
vectors. Subsequently, multiplication by division uncovered the octahedron hiding inside every tetrahedron. The octahedron- tetrahedron marriage is clearly an eternal bond.
Neither icosahedra nor pentagonal dodecahedra can fill all space.
[" Icosahedra, though symmetrical in themselves, will not close-pack
with one another or with any other symmetrical polyhedra" (910.01).]
The cube thus stands alone among regular polyhedra.
Complementarity
But let's reevaluate our apparently simple array of cubes. As the
obvious solution to filling all space with a single polyhedron, this
packing seems to provide the most straightforward information
about the shape of space. But look further. What if you could see the
cubes' face diagonals? An implied tetrahedron awaits visibility. Now
imagine filling in the necessary diagonals, so that the inscribed
tetrahedron-surrounded by four eighth-octahedra-appears in each
cube. At every junction of eight cubes, the octahedral parts come
together and form one complete octahedron around each cubical
corner (Fig. 12-2). As rectilinear boxes are unstable without diagonal
bracing, a stabilized packing of cubes turns into an Octet Truss.
Whether visible or not, the octet symmetry is implicit in the configuration.
The Greeks failed to get at the triangulated heart of their stack of
cubes, philosophizes Bucky, for "like all humans they were innately
intent upon finding the 'Building Block' of Universe." Had they
experimented with arranging tetrahedra vertex to vertex and been
179
180
A Fuller Explanation
181
182
A Fuller Explanation
(a)
(c)
Fig. 12-3
183
We allow the balloons to grow to the extent that all available space
is occupied. What is the shape of the balloons once they merge
together? Remember that twelve spheres pack tightly around one,
and so the tangency points between spheres, which were located at
the twelve (four-valent) vertices of vector equilibria, must now be
replaced by the same number of four-valent faces. We are thus
reminded that the domain of a sphere in closest packing-in Fuller's
words "the sphere and the sphere's own space" - is a rhombic
dodecahedron.
The above sequence provides an important insight into the spacefilling ability of rhombic dodecahedra. By renaming this diamondfaceted polyhedron "spheric," Fuller places considerable emphasis
on its relationship to closest packing. The spheric is thus presented
as a cosmically significant shape, the domain of the generalized
energy event, and consequently, the domain of every intersection in
the omnisymmetrical vector matrix.
Synergetics thus arrives at its all-space fillers through investigation
of nature's omnisymmetrical framework. IVM provides the context:
A "spheric" is anyone of the rhombic dodecahedra symmetrically recurrent
throughout an isotropic vector-matrix-geometry ... (426.10)
426.20 Allspace Filling:... Each rhombic dodecahedron defines exactly the
unique and omnisimilar domain of every radiantly alternate vertex ... as well as the
unique and omnisimilar domains ... of any aggregate of closest-packed uniradius
spheres ... "
184
A Fuller Explanation
Truncated Octahedron
Fig. 12-4
185
each other) and begin to frame a cavity in the exact tetrakaidecahedral shape (Fig. 12-4b).
Four tetrakaidecahedra fit together around one IVM vertex. To
ascertain the exact relationship of this packing to the IVM will
require some investigation: how remote are the vertices involved,
and how many cells are incorporated in between? We will answer
these questions below, but first we go back to the simpler cases, for a
sense of the whole progression.
Two to One: A Review
VE
Rhombohedron
3 v octahedron
Truncated octahedron
3 v tetrahedron
Truncated tetrahedron
aS pace filler.
2: 1a
8:3
2: 1"
32:19
32: 16 a
11: 4
7:4
186
A Fuller Explanation
= 2x
187
=
+
188
A Fuller Explanation
13
The Heart of the Matter:
A- and B-Quanta Modules
Minimum system, triangulation, equilibrium of vectors, closestpacked spheres, and space-filling: the path toward the isotropic
vector matrix has many origins, any of which can yield the unique
omnisymmetrical array. The result of traveling all of these routes is a
powerful awareness of the interplay of octahedral and tetrahedral
symmetries in space. However, the more thoroughly we search the
IVM, the greater the intricacy of these "intertransformabilities"calling for a new level of analysis to keep track of our discoveries.
IVM got us down to the basics. Even the cube, mathematics'
conventional building-block, reduces to octahedron~tetrahedron
components. However, tetrahedra and octahedra are not true structural quanta, for it was often necessary to break them apart into
subcomponents in order to build other polyhedra. Our task is
therefore still unfinished. We have yet to get to the heart of the
tetrahedron and octahedron.
Necessity thus leads us to Fuller's A- and B-quanta modules. 1
The missing element in our IVM analysis is a way to handle
redundancy. Symmetry-the degree to which a system looks exactly
the same in different orientations-is a kind of structural redundancy. The tetrahedron, the octahedron, and their various combinations all have a high degree of symmetry, and now we intend to
get to the root of it. How? By subdividing symmetrically until we can
go no further. As long as a system exhibits some degree of symmetry,
it can be divided into identical subunits, which can be put together
to recreate the original system. Ergo, the system was redundant.
Through progressive subdivision, we can locate the minimum subunit of any system. This final asymmetrical module-or "least
common denominator" (LCD)-contains the geometrical data
needed to reconstruct the whole system. We find the LCD by
subdividing a polyhedron until we reach the limit case, that is, a
module that can no longer be split into similar units.
190
A Fuller Explanation
A-Quanta Modules
Let's start again with our highly symmetrical friend, the tetrahedron.
The fact that its four faces are equivalent presents the first opportunity for subdivision-resulting in four equal parts. Each quarter
tetrahedron encompasses the region from the center of gravity (cg) to
a face (Fig. 13-1a). It is evident from the threefold symmetry of these
shallow pyramids that each can be sliced into three identical pieces,
as if it were a triangular pie (Fig. 13-1b). The resulting pie pieceslong thin tetrahedra stretching from the apex of the quarter tetrahedron (cg of regular tetrahedron) out to an original unit-length edge
-are quite irregular, and so the process is almost complete. However, one type of symmetry conspicuously remains. Each sliver can
be split in half to produce two mirror-image parts: a right- and a
left-handed version with identical angles and lengths (Fig. 13-1c).
And suddenly we have come to the end. There is no possible way to
divide that final product into equal parts; the shape thus generated is
the limit case. Fuller calls this asymmetrical tetrahedron the "Aquanta module."
A-quanta modules contain the complete geometric ingredients
needed to create a regular tetrahedron. We need twenty-four A-modules (twelve positive and twelve negative) to make a tetrahedron, but
one module alone supplies the information. The A-module, representing the volumetric essence of the tetrahedron, introduces a new
kind of building block.
B-Quanta Modules
191
(a)
(b)
(c)
gular lid can be subdivided into six equal irregular tetrahedra (three
positive, three negative) and these are called B-quanta modules. They
are generated by the LCD of the octahedron after that of the
tetrahedron is taken away. As long as the octahedron's asymmetrical
unit contained a complete A-module within its boundaries, the unit
was redundant. By removing the A-module which had occupied half
192
A Fuller Explanation
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 13-2. (a) One-sixth of an "octant" equals -is of an octahedron. (b) The quarter
tetrahedron fits inside the octant and has half the altitude. (c) Subtracting an A
module from
of an octahedron defines the B module.
193
194
A Fuiler Expianation
/
/
\1
.....
(b)
(a)
Fig. 13-3
195
bounce around inside the net without many available exits, whereas
in B-modules, energy is quickly released.
We can conceive of this energy in many ways-as light beams, as
bouncing electrons, or even as billiard balls for a more tangible
image. All three qualify as "energy events," and having a specific
image in mind makes it easier to think about the different "energyholding" characteristics. To understand and evaluate Fuller's assertion, we go along with his use of "energy," for the word covers a
great deal of territory already and his usage is internally consistent.
Fuller calls our attention to a geometric property that we may not
have otherwise noticed, and with respect to this phenomenon of
planar nets there is no doubt as to the difference between A- and
B-modules. What is the significance of this distinction? What are we
to conclude about the orderly contained A versus the disorderly
sprawling B? In terms of physical Universe, a judgement probably
cannot be made. However, for the purposes of this text and of
continuing to explore the geometric interactions of the two quanta,
we adopt Fuller's energy assignment: A's conserve; B's dissipate. It
provides a consistent reference system with which to classify the two
quanta and their subsequent interactions. Furthermore, two basic
modules exhibiting the same volume and different energy characteristics provide an even more attractive model of "fundamental complementarity": equivalent weight or importance, opposite charge.
Sound familiar? The parallels are tantalizing.
Mite
Next we apply our LCD analysis to the IVM. The procedure-calling for progressive subdivision in search of the minimum repeating
unit-comes to an end with a unit that can no longer be symmetrically divided. As before, we seek the smallest system that can be
duplicated to recreate the whole IVM-a microcosm, containing all
the ingredients of the macro-array.
Having already split tetrahedra into equal quarters and octahedra
into eighths, we skip directly to a unit consisting of a quarter
tetrahedron and an eighth-octahedron back to back, sharing an
equilateral-triangle face. This unit, which connects the geometrical
centers (or cg's) of any adjacent tetrahedron and octahedron in the
IVM, exhibits the same threefold symmetry as its two triangular
pyramids taken separately. Final subdivision thus yields six equivalent asymmetrical tetrahedra: three positive and three negative (Fig.
13-4).
196
A Fuller Explanation
197
B'
(a)
.,
:1
: r
*'--_ _~--.....
(b)
Fig, 13-5, (a) Orientations of Mite. (b) Unexpected mirror plane in Mite.
198
A Fuller Explanation
Mite is actually its own mirror image. The positive and negative
versions are identical. The slanting orientation depicted in Figure
13-5a obscures this fact; however, it turns out that the Mite has two
isoceles faces, a fact that indicates that the remaining two faces must
be identical (but mirror-image) triangles. Therefore, the outside
container of the Mite (ignoring the arrangement of its modular
ingredients) incorporates a subtle mirror plane and is actually exactly the same shape as its mirror image. A +A -B+ equals A +A -B(Fig. 13-5b). This extraordinary fact means that we don't need
positive and negative Mites to fill all space; one or the other version
-or both in random combinations-will suffice. As its own mirror
image, any Mite can fill either position, positive or negative.
We can conclude therefore that the two versions are identical;
however, Bucky points out that different internal configurations
cannot be ignored, for they point to different energy characteristics:
Though outwardly conformed identically with one another, the Mites are always
either positively or negatively biased internally with respect to their energy valving
(amplifying, chocking, cutting off, and holding) proclivities ... (954.43)
199
(a)
(b)
Fig. 13-6. The LCD of both cube and rhombic dodecahedron is the Mite.
No longer caught off guard by such interconnectedness, we conclude by observing that the Mite-faithfully representing octet symmetry-is also an integral component of the cube and the rhombic
dodecahedron.
Coupler
200
A Fuller Explanation
The coupler's different pairs of opposite vertices reach to the geometric centers of two adjacent polyhedra (cube or spheric, depending on
the orientation), incorporating their shared face as a cross-section
(Fig. 13-8a, b). Half a coupler belongs to one cube (or spheric), and
the other half to its neighbor. So the coupler literally couples-well,
not "everything" but-a couple of space-fillers.
Fuller continues: The coupler's role is cosmically relevant, for
"rhombic dodecahedra are the unique cosmic domains of their
respectively embraced unit radius closest-packed spheres" (954.47).
The coupler therefore connects the centers of gravity of adjacent
201
(b)
Fig. 13-8. "Coupler."
spheres, and its domain includes both the spheres and the intervening (dead air) space. This observation explains why the coupler's
volumetric center was labeled K: it marks the exact "kissing point"
between tangent spheres in a closepacked array. Now we have the
complete story behind Fuller's somewhat dense explanation of his
coupler:
. . . The uniquely asymmetrical octahedra serve most economically to join, or
couple, the centers of volume of each of the 12 unit radius spheres tangentially
closest packed around every closest packed sphere in Universe, with the center of
volume of that omnisymmetrical, ergo nuclear, sphere. (954.48)
Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the coupler is its similar role in
the cube and in the rhombic dodecahedron, thereby linking (or
coupling) the two space fillers in a new partnership.
Volume and Energy
202
A Fuller Explanation
to back, or
of a cube, and that in Chapter 10 the volume of a
tetrahedron was shown to be t that of a cube.) Dissimilar in
symmetry and shape, they are related by their shared unit volume,
inviting comparison. The coupler is a different sort of minimum
system: a semi symmetrical space filler, in contrast with the tetrahedron's origin as the minimum system of any kind, i.e., the first case
of insideness and outsideness.
Finally, we have to comment on the coupler's internal flexibility.
The number of different ways to arrange eight Mites is greatly
increased by the unexpected mirror symmetry. Since positive and
negative Mites can switch places, we actually have a pool of sixteen
from which to choose for each of the eight positions. A coupler
might consist of four positive and four negative Mites, or all positive,
all negative, or any of the possible combinations in between: (0-8,
1- 7, 2-6, 3-5, 4-4, ... ,8-0). Then, within each of these nine possible groups, the Mites can be switched around into four different
arrangements. (A few of these combinations are shown in Figure
13-9.) The resulting 36 varieties of couplers all have the same
outward shape, but in Fuller's view, their internal variations represent important distinctions in energy behavior:
When we discover the many rearrangements within the uniquely asymmetric
Coupler octahedra of volume one permitted by the unique self-interorientability of
the A and B Modules without any manifest of external conformation alteration, we
find that under some arrangements they are abetting the X axis interconnectings
203
between nuclear spheres and their 12 closest-packed ... spheres, or the Y axis
interconnectings. . .. (954.58)
When we consider that each of the eight couplers which surround each nuclear
coupler may consist of any of 36 different AAB intramural orientations, we
comprehend that the number of potentially unique nucleus and nuclear-shell interpatternings is adequate to account for all chemical element isotopal variations ... as
well as accommodation ... for all the nuclear substructurings, while doing so by
omnirational quantation. . .. (954.54)
In other words, "energy" travels in one direction or another depending on the arrangement of the (oppositely biased) A's and B's.
Synergetics thus accounts for nature's incredible variety and complexity despite its small number of different constituents. The secondary level of organization involves grouping the different couplers
together and results in an explosion of potential variations. A- and
B-modules can thus be rearranged into orderly octet configurations
in myriad ways; clusters might appear quite chaotic in some locations and precisely ordered into whole octahedra and tetrahedra in
others, while the overall space-filling matrix remains intact. As in
genetics, a small number of simple constituents are able to generate
a virtually unlimited repertoire of patterns.
Dismantling the cube, we saw that each of its six inverted pyramids
breaks down into four Mites. What does this tell us about A- and
B-modules? 24 Mites yield a total of 72 modules, with twice as many
A's and B's (or 48 : 24). This two-to-one ratio gets to the modular
heart of the octahedron-tetrahedron prerequisite for space filling, as
developed in the last chapter.
Neither tetrahedra with only A's nor octahedra with equal numbers of A's and B's can qualify as space fillers. So far, so good.
Thinking only in terms of A- and B-modules, what proportion of
tetrahedra and octahedra would we need to satisfy the recipe of two
A's for every B? The octahedron's 48 B's must co-occur with 96 A's;
the octahedron itself supplies half of them, but 48 A-modules are
still missing. Two tetrahedra will provide exactly the right number of
A-modules to complete the formula, thus reconfirming the one-to-two
octahedron-tetrahedron ratio discovered in the previous chapter.
The 48 Mites in the rhombic dodecahedron are easily disected into
96 A's and 48 B's, or a total of 144 modules. With twice as many A's
204
A Fuller Explanation
205
14
Cosmic Railroad Tracks: Great Circles
Any planar closed loop drawn on the surface of a sphere is necessarily a perfect circle, as a result of the sphere's steady curvature.
Such loops qualify as either "great" or "lesser" circles, and the
distinction is defined in mathematics as follows. A great circle is
formed by the intersection of a plane passing through the center of a
sphere with the surface of that sphere. Any other circle, no matter
what size, is lesser. The center of a great circle coincides with the
sphere's center. In short, a great circle is an equator-found in any
angular orientation, but always around the fattest part of its sphere.
What's so great about a great circle? Above all, it provides the
shortest route between any two points on a sphere. This geometric
fact is not obvious in many cases; for example, looking at a globe it
appears that the logical route between two points situated some
distance apart on the Tropic of Cancer involves traveling along their
shared "lesser circle" band (Fig. 14-1a). However, the principle is
made more obvious by Fuller's juxtaposition of two extreme cases.
He describes a small lesser circle near the North Pole of an imaginary globe, and labels two points A and B (Fig. 14-1b). As with the
larger Tropic of Cancer, the eye naturally travels from A to B along
their mutual lesser-circle path, without suspecting that this represents the "long way around." Fuller then redraws the same lesser
circle in a new location-superimposed over the globe's equator so
that A and B both fall on the horizontal great circle. The shortest
route between A and B is suddenly obvious. Likewise, between any
two points on a sphere the most expedient route will be a great-circle
segment; Fuller's example makes it easy to see that a lesser-circle
path will always present a detour.
Other special characteristics: Any two great circles on a sphere
must intersect twice-specifically, at two points 180 degrees apart.
There is no other possibility: unless they are actually the same circle,
two great circles can neither avoid each other altogether, nor intersect only once, nor intersect more than twice. Finally, the junction of
two great circles inscribes two pairs of equal and opposite angles on
207
Tropic of Cancer
A
Equator
(b)
(a)
Fig. 14-1
208
A Fuller Explanation
The concept (rather than the reality) of a sphere-i.e., an omnisymmetrical container-acts as a frame of reference for polyhedral
systems. Spherical polyhedra thus introduce new versions of familiar
characters. The topological information (that is, the numbers and
valencies of vertices, edges, and faces) of any polyhedron are displayed on a spherical canvas. An obvious consequence of this type of
display is that shape is no longer a variable. Shape similarities, which
are so rigorously accounted for by A and B modules, are thus
ignored; our investigation now focuses in on topological, or surface,
characteristics. Transforming polyhedra into balloons temporarily
equalizes shape and size, providing a "common denominator" for
other comparisons. The process develops a somewhat unorthodox
chart.
New Classification System
However, the chart is not yet complete. Simply projecting edges and
faces onto a spherical surface does not teach us anything new. We
have yet to exploit the nature of the sphere.
Spheres suggest spin. That's how synergetics initially arrives at the
omnidirectional form. Spin any system in all directions, and ultimately the action will have defined a circumscribing spherical envelope. Fuller places considerable emphasis on the" spinnability" of
systems, arguing that as everything in Universe is in motion, the
different axes of spin inherent in systems are worthy of investigation.
209
Let's begin with a representative system, the octahedron. We interconnect polar opposites, starting with vertices, followed by mid-edge
points and finally face centers. Six paired vertices are connected by
three mutually perpendicular lines, the familiar XYZ axes meeting at
the octahedral center of gravity (Fig. 14-3a). These axes define three
orthogonal great circles, which divide the sphere's surface into eight
triangular areas, or octants. Three symmetrically arranged great
circles will always form the edges of a spherical octahedron (Fig.
14-2, middle). That much is straightforward.
On to edges. The octahedron's twelve edges consist of six opposing
pairs, the midpoints of which can be connected by six intersecting
axes (Fig. 14-3b). The same number of great circles are thereby
generated, delineating another facet of the octahedron's symmetry
(Fig. 14-4). Unlike the previous case, the pattern made by six great
circles does not look like an octahedron. Its twenty-four right
210
A Fuller Explanation
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 14-3. Different sets of axes of symmetry. (a) Paired vertices yield 3 axes of
four-fold rotational symmetry. (b) Paired edges yield 6 two-fold axes. (c) Paired
faces yield 4 three-fold axes.
isosceles triangles 1 outline the edges of both the spherical cube and
rhombic dodecahedron, as well as the edges of two intersecting
spherical tetrahedra (otherwise known as the "star tetrahedron"),
thus highlighting the topological relationship between these four
systems. This exercise demonstrates a new aspect of "intertransformability": great circles generated by a given polyhedron often delineate the spherical edges of its symmetrical cousins.
211
212
A Fuller Explanation
Fig. 14-6. Twenty-five great circles of the
VE.
213
214
A Fuller Explanation
Fig. 14-8. Thirty-one great circles.
(a)
(b)
215
;8'
216
A Fuller Explanation
(a)
(c)
217
(b)
(d)
The intertransformability displayed by the VE's least common denontinator is straightforward, in contrast to the skew relationships
demonstrated above. Groups of four units create diamond faces
218
A Fuller Explanation
(a)
(c)
(b)
(d)
219
Operational Mathematics
Fig. 14-13
220
A Fuller Explanation
Fig. 14-14. Four bowties create the four
great circles of the VE.
all be exactly the same. 360 degrees divided among six equal segments yields 60-degree angles. First-hand experience has confirmed
both the constant radius and sixty-degree angles, and therefore the
presence of equilateral triangles with arc segments at their outer
edges is experientially proved.
One fold (line AB) faces you; the other two folds are facing away.
Bringing point A to point B, we create one of Fuller's "bowties"
(Fig. 14-13, bottom). A bobby pin straddling the seam keeps the
bowtie together: two unit-length regular tetrahedra joined by an
edge. We repeat the procedure three times, producing four bowties in
all. It is then apparent that two of them can be placed seam to seam
and pinned together with two more bobby pins, to produce four
tetrahedra surrounding a half-octahedral cavity. The other two bowties are similarly paired, and finally the two pairs are connected
along their congruent fold lines with four more bobby pins. A
complete paper sphere emerges (Fig. 14-14). This strange procedure
has created a very familiar pattern: four continuous great circles, or
a spherical VE. The only materials required are four paper circles
and twelve bobby pins.
What has happened? Four separate paper circles have been folded,
bent, transformed into bowties, and pinned together without paying
any attention to converging angles. No special jig is required to line
up adjacent bowties and insure that consecutive great-circle arcs are
collinear. Folded edges are simply brought together, and four continuous great circles magically reappear, as if the original paper
circles were still intact. Looking only at the finished model, it
appears that we had to cleverly cut slits in the paper circles in just
the right places to allow the four circles to pass through each other.
The procedure is reminiscent of the magic trick in which a hankerchief
221
is cut into many tiny pieces and thrown randomly into a hat, only to
reappear intact.
A spherical VE can be constructed through this simple folding
exercise because of the specific interplay of its surface and central
angles. Remarkable numerical cooperation is required to allow adjacent central angles to fold out of flat circular disks, while automatically generating correct surface angles. That four great circles will
submit to this bowtie operation is not at all obvious from studying
the whole pattern, and even less so in the case of other, far more
complicated models.
Conservation of Angle
222
A Fuller Explanation
,
:
fi
~\
"
;'
'-
3. -, " - .. - ,,-. 4
"" ~.
..-, .' ... '..~
..
/I
2")(,
"
.~" 'II,
...
, , /-,
,4
'Il.
-.
1:
~ , ."
".
Ii
-.5 .'' .' :
", --1t... ...... .......... ~
"
; ,
,
,
/
I
(a)
(b)
Fig. 14-15. (a) Ball bounces back from the wall at the same angle it would have
made wi th the wall on the other side had the wall not been there. (b) "Local holding
pattern:" figure-eight loop.
223
Foldable Systems
In this construction, six circles are folded in half and then the
resulting semicircles are each folded in the middle at a right angle.
The six bent semicircle pancakes (rather than three open bowties)
are then simply pinned together to simulate the three great circles of
the octahedron (Fig. 14-17).
Fuller attributes these discoveries to a "basic cosmic sixness":
There is a basic cosmic sixness of the two sets of tetrahedra in the vector
equilibrium. There is a basic cosmic sixness also in an octahedron minimally-greatcircle-produced of six great circles; you can see only three because they are doubled
up. And there are also six great circles occurring in the icosahedron. All these are
foldable .... This sixness corresponds to our six quanta: our six vectors that make
one quantum. (842.05-6)
224
A Fuller Explanation
6x
Fig. 14-16. Six bowties create the six great circles of the cube or octahedron.
14-16. The six bowties are pinned together at the seams to create the
24 surface triangles of the spherical cube and star tetrahedron. And
it works: the illusion of six continuous circles is maintained.
The icosahedral six great circles fold into pentagonal bowties.
Fold lines divide each circle into ten equal slices of pie, carving out
the 36-degree central angles. Each circle is then pinched together at
one point to form a double-pentagon figure-eight. Just like the
triangular predecessors, each circle folds into a "local circuit" and is
connected to other local circuits to create the illusion of continuous
great circles (Fig. 14-18).
Fuller experiments with the "foldability" of considerably more
intricate patterns. Larger numbers of great circles intersect more
frequently, and arc segments have correspondingly smaller central
angles. The number of folds and the precision required for each of
the tiny irregular angles make these higher-frequency models extraordinarily difficult to build, and even more difficult to visualize
without a model. Each of the ten great circles of the icosahedron can
fold into winding chains of six narrow tetrahedra, which then
interlink to reproduce the ten-great-circle pattern. 2 Fuller claims that
ED
225
~
::--1-
\ -, L.- . -
-"i'
-I .......
,,
I
Fig. 14-18. Six pentagonal bowties create the six great circles of the icosahedron.
226
A Fuller Explanation
Energy Paths
Here's the basic premise: First, the concept of a sphere provides a
model of the generalized system, and on the surface of a sphere the
shortest route is a geodesic path. Secondly, Universe breaks down
into discrete systems, which consist exclusively of energy events and
their relationships. And finally, energy is always in motion, perpetually transferred between finite local systems along most direct routes,
and therefore, energy must be traveling through Universe via greatcircle paths.
Gas Molecules
We consider a specific example:
A vast number of molecules of gas interacting in great circles inside of a sphere
will produce a number of great-circle triangles. The velocity of their accomplishment
of this structural system of total inter triangulation averaging will seem to be
instantaneous to the human observer. (703.14)
227
To Fuller the ability to fold individual paper circles and automatically generate an entire symmetrical pattern gives great-circle models
important physical relevance. They demonstrate his statement that
no two lines can go through the same point at the same time and
illustrate the concept of "interference patterns." The model, says
Fuller, is consistent with physical behavior.
Although physical systems are always imperfect, the result of a
vast number of interactions is approximate symmetry. With enough
data or time, all possible paths can be tried, and the properties of
space come into play. What does a maximally symmetrical distribution on a spherical surface look like?
The aggregate of all the inter-great-circlings resolve themselves typically into a
regular pattern of 12 pentagons and 20 triangles, or sometimes more complexedly,
into 12 pentagons, 30 hexagons, and 80 triangles described by 240 great-circle
chords. (703.14)
228
A Fuller Explanation
Chapter 8 examined the closest packing of spheres. The next question in Fuller's investigation is how "energy" will navigate through
these clusters. The idea that closepacked spheres present a sort of
conceptual model of physical Universe is at the root of Fuller's
great-circle studies. As a space-filling array of discrete systems,
whose omnisymmetrical qualities recommend them as a general
representation of eternally spinning energy-event systems, closepacked spheres do provide a tantalizing model. Chapter 8 described
the closest packing, which places every sphere in contact with twelve
others, and this chapter mapped out the complete network of shortest-distance paths around a spherical system described by these
twelve contact points. The "cosmic railroad tracks" thus described
were the 25 great circles of the VE:
The 12 points of tangency of unit-radius spheres in closest packing, such as is
employed by any given chemical element, are important because energies traveling
over the surface of spheres must follow the most economical spherical surface
routes, which are inherently great circle routes, and in order to travel over a series of
spheres, they could pass from one sphere to another only at the 12 points of
tangency of anyone sphere with its closest-packed neighboring uniform-radius
sphere." (452.01)
229
230
A Fuller Explanation
The VE's 25 great circles incorporate those of the rhombic dodecahedron, octahedron, cube, and tetrahedron. The icosahedral 31 belong to a different family of symmetries. Both groups together
constitute seven sets of axes of symmetry: four contributed by the
VE's vertices, edges, and two types of faces, and three by the
icosahedron's vertices, edges, and faces.
1042.05 The seven unique cosmic axes of symmetry describe all of crystallography. They describe the all and only 6reat circles foldable into bow ties, which may
be reassembled to produce the seven, great-circle, spherical sets ....
with each polyhedron is always one more than the number of its
edges. For example:
Edges
Tetrahedron
Octahedron
Cube
VE
Icosahedron
Great Circles
12
12
24
30
13
13
25
31
HE + F + V)
- 1
E.
or
and finally
231
F+V-2=E,
F+ V= E + 2,
15
From Geodesic to Tensegrity:
The Invisible Made Visible
233
Fig. 15-1
234
A Fuller Explanation
235
is functionally equivalent to the original icosahedron-the advantages of triangulation are lost. It is thus clear that a convex
polyhedral enclosure with more than twenty triangles cannot consist
exclusively of equilateral faces. Adjacent triangles must differ slightly
in shape and size to allow angles around each six-valent vertex to
add up to less than 360 degrees, as necessary for continuous convexity.3 Fortunately, this unavoidable variation among chord lengths
can be far less than that of the 31-great-circle pattern. To understand
how these irregular triangles are generated, we back up and review
the problem as a whole.
Theory Behind Geodesic Structures: Summary
236
A Fuller Explanation
Fig. 15-4. Each new vertex is projected outward to the surface of an imaginary
sphere defined by the original icosahedron vertices.
237
Fuller points out that an extremely high-frequency geodesic polyhedron provides the true model of physical systems which we interpret as spheres, as for example a soap bubble. The notion of a
continuous surface equidistant from a central point is scientifically
238
A Fuller Explanation
239
240
A Fuller Explanation
The principles behind the geodesic dome are not new; they are
eternal laws of nature. The application of these geometric facts to a
building system is new. Fuller is quick to explain,
Though ... similar in patternings to ... flies' eyes, geodesic structuring is true
invention. .. Flies' eyes do not provide human-dwelling precedent or man-occupiable ... structures. (640.01)
(a)
241
(b)
I~
?hv
/
/-
--
- - -
- - ~\
(d)
(c)
Fig. 15-7
242
A Fuller Expla..'l.ation
243
(b)
(a)
Fig. 15-8. (a) Use of LCD in geodesic-dome calculations. (b) Examples: LCD for 6v
and 4 v icosahedral geodesic domes.
most invention and design, the initial insight was not enough to
produce a 250-foot-diameter clear-spanning structure overnight. The
subsequent calculations required enormous aptitude and perseverance. Consider the precision necessary to have six struts meeting at
the same point, at thousands of different vertices; minute errors in
strut lengths at only a few points will accumulate and produce vast
discrepancies elsewhere on the dome. Dealing with tolerances similar
to that of the aircraft industry rather than the relatively crude
building world, Fuller had to develop absolutely reliable trigonometric data to enable the construction of extremely large domes.
Tensegrity
244
A Fuller Explanation
245
The apparently insurmountable limit to the clear-span of a structure existed because the interdependence of tension and compression
was not fully understood. In general, the history of construction
reveals an overwhelming dependence on compression. Our concept
of building has been inseparably tied to that of weight; early
humanity piled one stone on top of another, and we continue to
employ the same single strategy, fighting gravity with sheer mass.
But compressional continuity has its limits, such as the impossibility
of achieving spans greater than 150 feet. Any larger dome would
collapse under the force of its own weight. Moreover, although
architects may not have reflected on the principles of tensional
integrity, necessity apparently forced them to add a powerful iron
chain around the base of St. Peter's dome; the outward thrusts from
all that compression needed further restraint.
Fuller decided that a better approach was needed than that of
slapping on a bandage at the end. Following nature's example,
tension must be designed into the structure at the start. In fact,
tension must be primary.
Nature's Example
Look around; nature's been using tensegrity all along. Humanity was
able to overlook this structural truth for thousands of years because
tension tends to be invisible. Seeing rocks sitting on the ground and
bricks piled upon bricks, we have developed a virtually unshakable
"solid-things" understanding of how Universe works. The ubiquitous
tension forces, from gravity to intermolecular attraction, tend to be
more subtle:
... at the invisible level of atomic structuring the coherence of the myriad atomic
archipelagos of a "single" pebble's compressional mass is provided by comprehensively continuous tension. This fact was invisible to and unthought of by historical
man up to yesterday. .. there was naught to disturb, challenge or dissolve his "solid
things" thinking ... 7
246
A Fuller Explanation
247
ity." This beautiful example of "doing more with less" was a favorite
for Bucky, who never forgot being told by well-meaning adults
during his first eight years, "Darling, it is inherently impossible for
man to fly."
Driving toward a specific observation about Universe, Bucky
describes theoretically ideal structural components for each of the
two forces, as suggested by their different characteristics. Why will a
short fat column not buckle under a compressive force that easily
breaks a tall thin column of the same material and weight? Geometry governs the situation as follows. A system is most resistant to
compression in one direction, namely along an axis perpendicular to
its widest cross-section, in which case, its vulnerable girth is as
strong as possible. This is the neutral axis. The wider its girth, the
more impervious a column will be to compression. Therefore, a short
fat column is better able to resist buckling than a tall thin column of
the same material and weight, because the latter lacks sufficient
resistence perpendicular to the line of force. Similarly, if a compression force that will easily break a long column (a pencil, for
example) is applied perpendicular to its length, that column will be
unharmed (Fig. 15-9a, b). That much is common sense, but in less
extreme situations an understanding of the "neutral axis" is necessary to enable the prediction of exact results.
Next, imaging loading a slightly malleable cigar-shaped column;
compression causes the girth to expand, forcing the column to
become progressively more spherical. This transformation suggests a
candidate for the ideal compression component (Fig. 15-9c).
A sphere is the only shape in which every axis is a neutral axis,
which is to say, a sphere's width is the same in every orientation.
Therefore, this shape resists compression from any direction; it
cannot buckle. Hence the ball bearing. This tangible example illustrates the ideal design for compression.
What about tension? Evidence of longer, thinner, and ever more
resilient tension materials suggests that there's no inherent limit to
length. Fuller takes this a step further: "May we not get to where we
have very great lengths and no cross-section at all?" He answers his
own question, "This is just the way Universe is playing the game."
Gravity is that invisible limitless tension force. "The Earth and the
Moon are invisibly cohered ... "; the tension cable has reached the
limit case in thinness: it's nonexistent. "You have enormous tension
with no section at all." A splendid design! The solar system is thus a
magnificent tensegrity: discontinuous compression spheres (i.e.,
248
A Fuller Explanation
l77/Y/7
(a)
//'7/11017 II 77
(b)
-0
(c)
Fig. 15-9
249
up until then
man had been superficially misled into [thinking] that there could be solids or
continuous compression .... Only man's mentality has been wrong in trying to
organize the idea of structure. (645.04)
That humanity can learn from the principles of nature is the essence
of Fuller's message. We must abandon our building-block concept of
structure in favor of comprehensive solutions which take advantage
of the inherent qualities of tension and compression. The latter tends
to do the local, isolated structural tasks in nature, while the former
specializes in cohering systems over great distances. While we understand that Universe is not structured like a stack of bricks, that
awareness has not affected our approach to construction. A "building-block" approach has persisted more or less unchanged for thousands of years, pitting structural bulk against gravity's vigilant force.
Instead, argues Fuller, we must think in terms of whole systems in
equilibrium, omnidirectional forces interacting in self-stabilizing patterns. If, emulating nature, structural design capitalizes on the integrity of tension, these "whole systems" will prove far stronger than
analysis of their separate parts could predict.
Additionally, we can learn from nature's structuring method:
converging and diverging, she produces bubbles, explosions, stars,
and the radially expanding sound and light waves. Energy pushes
out, and its expansion is countered by tensional restraints such as
the pull of gravity and molecular forces. Eventually, the two dynamics reach an equilibrium, a tentative balance such as a soap
bubble.
Fuller heralded an "era of thinking and conscious designing in
terms of comprehensive tension and discontinuous compression"
(640.42). He saw an unmistakable change taking place, largely going
unnoticed. This "new era" began with the spoke wheel, which Fuller
pinpoints as man's first breakthrough into tensegrity thinking:
I saw that his structural conceptioning of the wire wheel documented his
intellectual designing breakthrough into such thinking and structuring. The compressional hub of the wire wheel is clearly islanded or isolated from the compressional "atoll" comprising the rim of the wheel. The compressional islands are
interpositioned in structural stability only by the tensional spokes .... This reverses
the historical structural strategy of man. (640.42)
The wheel's use of tension enables a far more efficient and lightweight
250
A Fuller Explanation
Fig. 15-10. Wheel with compression
spokes.
251
252
A Fuller Explanation
A tensegrity icosahedron, therefore, is more honest than a toothpick-marshmallow structure which seems to have five edges touching
at each vertex. In the tensegrity, edges all come within critical
proximity of the location of a "vertex" and" twist by each other."
Figure 15-11 illustrates the relationship between the tensegrity
icosahedron and its Platonic counterpart. Instead of a five-valent
"point" with the illusion of continuity, each convergence is marked
by a pentagon of string, thus illustrating the fact that individual
energy events do not touch but instead hover in a state of dynamic
equilibrium. Tensegrity structures provide a visible, tangible illustration of an invisible truth. Forces and their interactions are brought
out in the open.
Perhaps the most significant lesson from tensegrity structures lies
in their unexpected strength. A tensegrity's apparent extreme fragility is completely deceptive. The uninformed observer will usually
approach such a structure with great caution, touch it hesitantly and
gently so as not to break the delicate model, and (if persistent)
ultimately realize that a tensegrity can be thrown around the room
without harm. The erroneous initial assumption is a result of a
deeply ingrained bias in favor of compression as the reliable source
of structure. We perceive string and cable as flimsy, but actually the
253
254
A Fuller Explanation
255
Pneumatics
We recall Fuller's great-circle description in which a vast number of
gas molecules are bouncing around inside a sphere, with their
great-circle chords ultimately describing an icosahedral pattern as a
result of spatial constraints. Tensegrity now completes the image.
Fuller explains that tensegrity provides a tangible demonstration
of what happens inside a balloon. We tend to think of the balloon's
skin as a continuous surface; however, a more accurate picture is
256
A Fuller Explanation
Gas molecules push out against the tensed rubber net and a dynamic
equilibrium is maintained; compression and tension are in balance.
Our eyes cannot see the bustling molecular activity of the balloon,
and Fuller sees synergetics as a way to help us tune in to this
invisible behavior. A high-frequency tensegrity icosahedron does just
that:
In the geodesic tensegrity sphere, each of the entirely independent, compressional
chord struts represents two oppositely directioned and force-paired molecules. The
tensegrity compressional chords do not touch one another. They operate independently, trying to escape outwardly from the sphere, but are held in by the
spherical-tensional integrity's closed network system of great-circle connectors ....
(703.16)
257
16
"Design Science"
"I did not set out to design a geodesic dome," Fuller once said, "I
set out to discover the principles operative in Universe. For all I
knew, this could have led to a pair of flying slippers." This playful
declaration stands as a concise summary of the philosophy behind
Fuller's life's work and introduces the relationship of synergetics to
design. "Design science," in the most general terms, maintains that
faithful observation of Universe is the basis of successful invention.
The idea therefore is not to invent some strange new gadget, hoping
there will be a market for it, but rather to tap into the exquisite
workings of nature. While the significance of scientific discoveries is
not always immediately understood, the accumulated "generalized
principles" have been applied in innovative ways throughout history,
producing artifacts which have gradually transformed the physical
environment. Therein lies the key to humanity's success aboard
Spaceship Earth, explains Bucky Fuller.
"Comprehensive Anticipatory Design Science"
259
1/
260
A Fuller Explanation
261
went largely unheralded. Specialization removed the burden of asking what a scientific development means in terms of the whole
picture.
Fuller has a reason for pointing out such historical trends: the
design scientist will be maximally effective as a comprehensive
thinker. Once again, he redefines and thereby expands the concept of
design. The design scientist is not to be concerned with an attractive
handle for refrigerator doors, but rather with the whole concept of
the distribution and preservation of food for humanity. Such subjects, he emphasizes, are not too large to think about. Only through
systematic comprehensive planning does humanity have a chance to
survive its growing crisis.
A "comprehensivist," he continues, may periodically have to
"plunge very deeply" into a narrow subject or specialized project;
however, such activity is always part of a larger plan. "Local
problem solvers" can function with a global perspective. Our emphasis must shift from "earning a living" to accomplishing vital tasks if
humanity is to survive, cautions Fuller; moreover, the "living" will
take care of itself if we concentrate on doing what needs to be done.
These sweeping statements at first may seem difficult to apply;
however, Fuller's philosophy is backed up by a lifetime of revolutionary invention and research into world patterns and trends, which
stem directly from his 1927 decision to think about the whole system
of "Spaceship Earth." He explains that his accomplishments were
only possible because he gave himself the license to be a generalist: it
is feasible to conceptualize humanity's food production and distribution (for example) as a whole system; it is a complicated study, but
one with clearly defined boundaries: just food-where it is grown,
where and when it is eaten, how and at what cost to the environment, consumer, etc. 1
" ... Anticipatory ... "
Finally, the design scientist must think ahead. In each industry, there
are specific "gestation rates" that determine the length of time
between invention and widespread practical application. These inherent lags vary according to the nature of a design: in the electronics industry, for example, it is only a matter of months before a new
invention can be incorporated into commercial production; car
manufacturers might require five years to bring a new idea to the
consumer; and housing presents the slowest evolution of all, Fuller's
rather optimistic estimate of the 'gestation rate' being fifty years.
262
A Fuller Explanation
263
Another of Fuller's inventions, in response to a very different problem than architectural design, is based on similar geometric principles. The problem is to draw a flat map of the world without the
gross distortions inherent in the Mercator projection. In the early
1940s, dismayed by this widely accepted map's inaccurate depiction
of our world-a visual lie presenting Greenland as three times the
size of Australia, when exactly the reverse is true- Fuller was
determined to discover a better solution.
Let's consider the design problem. Visual data must be reliably
translated from the surface of a spherical "whole system" onto a flat
display with only one side. To understand how the Mercator projection attempts to accomplish this task, imagine wrapping a large
rectangular piece of paper around a transparent globe, forming a
cylinder that touches only the equator. The geographical outlines are
then projected directly outward to the cylindrical paper, as if by a
light source inside the globe casting omnidirectional shadows. As a
result, the visual information is accurately translated to the paper
only at the equator; some distortion exists slightly above and below
the equator, and it increases radically as one goes farther north and
south on the map. In many versions Antartica is left out altogether,
even South America is smaller than the gigantically distorted Greenland, and certain land areas-depending on which country has
produced the map-must be split in half to turn the cylinder into a
flat poster.
Unwilling to accept such distortion as necessary, Fuller started
from scratch. If a spherical system is to be translated onto a flat
surface, what is the most efficient and direct solution? It's a geometry
problem; the relevant "generalized principle" involves the polyhedral system which best approximates a sphere with only one type
of face. (The latter consideration insures an evenly distributed projection.) That system, which is of course an icosahedron, is the basis
of a reliable and simple solution.
Imagine a globe with the edges of a spherical icosahedron superimposed on its surface by thin steel straps. Chapter 14 described
planar polyhedra expanding into spherical polyhedra, as if drawn on
balloons; we now visualize the reverse process. The steel arcs slowly
unbend into straight-edge chords, while the curved triangle faces
264
A Fuller Explanation
flatten out into planar equilateral triangles. The overall shape change
is relatively slight (consider for comparison a spherical tetrahedron
undergoing the same operation, or a sphere turning into a cylinder as
in the Mercator projection), and the global "whole system" is
preserved. As the globe transforms into an icosahedron, twenty
spherical triangles with 72-degree comers become planar triangles
with 60-degree comers; 12 degrees are squeezed out of each angle.
(With three angles per triangle, 12 degrees times 60 angles equals
none other than our old friend the "720-degree takeout.") Because
each triangle of the spherical icosahedron covers a relatively small
portion of the sphere and is thus fairly flat, the distortion during this
transformation is minimal-and in fact invisible to the untrained
eye. Moreover, the polyhedral projection automatically distributes
the distortion symmetrically around the globe's surface and thereby
insures that the relative sizes of land masses are accurate. (This is
why a regular polyhedron is a preferred vehicle; different types of
faces would distort slightly different amounts during the transition
from spherical to planar.) Finally, all geographical data are contained within the triangular boundaries; there is no "spilling" of
information or need to fill in gaps with "extra" land as in the
Mercator.
The next step is straightforward. Unfold the icosahedron to display its twenty triangles on a flat surface. The result is a map of the
entire world with little distortion of the relative shape and size of
land masses, and no breaks in the continental contours (Fig. 16-1).
No nation is split and shown on two opposite sides of the map as if
separated by 20,000 miles.
That last step required more work than is immediately apparent,
however. It took Fuller two years of experimenting to find an
orientation in which all twelve icosahedral vertices land in the ocean
-an essential requirement if land masses are not to be ripped apart.
Observe in Figure 16-1 that many of the vertices are extremely close
to shore. One can imagine the frustrating task of searching for twelve
water locations; moving a vertex away from land on one side of the
globe would instantly result in a number of vertices bumping into
land somewhere else. Contemplating the five or six angular gaps
which are precariously close to land masses, one suspects that
Fuller's final arrangement may be a unique solution to the problem.
The Dymaxion Map, awarded U.S. Patent 2,393,676 in 1946, is an
unprecedented cartographic accomplishment, which was made possible by a straightforward application of geometry. This map is
therefore another superb example of the design-science approach.
Fuller considered the problem outside the context of traditional
265
nster Fuller
Fig. 16-1. Dymaxion Map@, used with pernusslOn of the Buckmi
.)
Institute
the
about
tion
informa
more
for
C
Institute. (See Appendix
266
A Fuller Explanation
(a)
(b)
267
268
A Fuller Explanation
269
Pentagon
360 0
-;-
f3
f3
5=
72 0 =
f3 + 2(ta)
a
180 0
= 180 0
f3
a = 108 0
Hexagon
360 0
......
/'
6 = f3 = 60 0
-;-
f3 + a
180 0
120 0
...... 4
""""f3 ....,I
I
I
Heptagon
360 0
-;-
a
a
f3
51.43 0
180 - 51.43 0
= 128.57 0
0
272
A Fuller Explanation
Chord Factors
~ Polyhedral
edge
...--------'
Radius
Central angle
(corresponds to
a polyhedral edge)
1./
sin 1. a = 2....
R sin ~a = ~/
2R sin ~a = /
R [2 sin ~a 1 =
R X [chord factor]
= /
v=
where A b
t AbH,
height.
Bh
1 x sin 60
2
1(0.8660)
=
2
0.4330.
H~
H 2 + (0.5774)2
12,
= 0.8165.
~
0.5774
(3) Volume:
V =
Ab X H
= 0.11785.
~74
~
0.5
A Fuller Explanation
274
Octahedron
V.
"
""
"x
/
//
/
"-
"-
=1
""
1110~.8~6~60
\.'--
-v.- - - '
o.s
H2 + (0.5)2 = (0.8660f,
H = 0.7071.
---- =
0.2357.
Icosahedron
Twenty pyramids with equilateral bases and side-edge length equal to the
icosahedron radius.
1.61803
(2) Radius R:
(2R)2
(1.61803)2
+ (1)2,
R = 0.95106 .
0.5774
~74
0.5
(.5774)2 + H2 ,
0.7557.
275
276
A Fuller Explanation
1(0.866)
= 0.4330.
2.1817.
Appendix C: Sources of
Additional Information
All books, unless noted by an asterisk, are available from the Buckminster
Fuller Institute, 1743 S. La Cienega Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90035. A
number of versions of the Dymaxion Map can also be obtained; write the
Institute for a complete list.
General
Some of the other books by R. Buckminster Fuller (in addition to those
listed in the bibliography) recommended for further reading:
Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth (Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois
University Press, 1969).
No More Secondhand God (Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University
Press, 1969). Poems and essays.
Biographical Material
Robert Snyder, Buckminster Fuller: An Autographical Monologue Scenario,
(New York: St. Martin's Press, 1980). A great introduction, written by
Fuller's son-in-law using Fuller's own words, with hundreds of
photographs from the Fuller archives.
E. J. Applewhite, Cosmic Fishing (New York: Macmillan, 1977). Especially
good for its description of the collaboration between Bucky and his
long-time friend E. J. Applewhite in the process of writing Synergetics.
Hugh Kenner, BUCKY: A Guided Tour of Buckminster Fuller (New York:
William Morrow, 1973).
Geodesic Mathematics
Hugh Kenner, Geodesic Math: And How to Use It (Berkeley, University of
California Press, 1976).
278
A Fuller Explanation
World Game
"50 Years of Design Science Revolution and the World Game," historical
documentation (articles, clippings) with commentary by Fuller, 1969.
Available only through the Buckminster Fuller Institute.
Medard Gabel, Earth, Energy and Everyone (Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1975).
Medard Gabel, HO-ping: Food For Everyone (Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1976).
Write for newsletter, information about seminars and workshops, and list of
available material to The World Game, University City Science Center,
3508 Market Street #214, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
(1) Minimum system: the tetrahedron is the first case of insideness and
outsideness.
(2) The regular tetrahedron fits inside the cube, with its edges providing
the diagonals across the cube's six faces, and thereby supplying the six
supporting struts needed to stabilize the otherwise unstable cube.
Furthermore, two intersecting regular tetrahedra outline all eight vertices of
the cube.
(3) The tetrahedron is unique in being its own dual.
(4) The six edges of the regular tetrahedron are parallel to the six
intersecting vectors that define the vector equilibrium.
(5) Similarly, the four faces of the regular tetrahedron are the same four
planes of symmetry inherent in the vector equilibrium and in cubic
closepacking of spheres. The tetrahedron is thus at the root of an
ornnisymmetrical space-filling vector matrix, or isotropic vector matrix.
(6) When the volume of a tetrahedron is specified as one unit, other
ordered polyhedra are found to have precise whole-number volume ratios,
as opposed to the cumbersome and often irrational quantities generated by
employing the cube as the unit of volume. Furthermore, the tetrahedron has
the most surface area per unit of volume.
(7) Of all polyhedra, the tetrahedron has the greatest resistance to an
applied load. It is the only system that cannot "dimple"; reacting to an
external force, a tetrahedron must either remain unchanged or tum
completely "inside out."
(8) The surface angles of the tetrahedron add up to 720 degrees, which is
the" angular takeout" inherent in all closed systems.
(9) The tetrahedron is the starting point, or "whole system," in Fuller's
"Cosmic Hierarchy," and as such contains the axes of symmetry that
characterize all the polyhedra of the isotropic vector matrix, or face-centered
cubic symmetry in crystallography.
(10) Packing spheres together requires a minimum of four balls, to
produce a stable arrangment, automatically forming a regular tetrahedron.
The centers of the four spheres define the tetrahedral vertices. In Fuller's
words. "four balls lock."
280
A Fuller Explanation
Appendix E: Glossary
282
A Fuller Explanation
Appendix E: Glossary
283
interior angle of polygon: Angle between two edges measured through the
inside.
interprecessing: See precession.
intertransfonnability: Phenomenon of significant relationships between
systems, allowing transformations from one to another. Applies to both
polyhedra and natural structures. Examples include shared symmetry
among polyhedra and common constituents arranged differently to
produce different substances.
isotropic vector matrix, IVM: Space-filling array of unit-length vectors, in
which all vectors are identically situated. The "omnisymmetrical" matrix
consists of an indefinite expanse of alternating tetrahedra and octahedra,
with 60-degree angles between adjacent vectors. This conceptual IVM
framework can be actualized with building materials to create an Octet
Truss, which is an extremely efficient and lightweight architectural space
frame.
jitterbug transfonnation: Transformation of a cuboctahedron model, in
which flexible joints allow the unstable polyhedron to contract in a
radially symmetrical manner, and thereby take on the shape of various
other polyhedral systems.
Mite: Two mirror-image "A-modules" and one "B-module" combined to
create an asymmetrical tetrahedron, in which three right angles surround
one vertex. Trirectangular tetrahedron.
nature's coordinate system: The mathematically expressible system that
governs the coordination of both physical and metaphysical phenomena.
Set of generalizations about the way systems are structured and able to
cohere over time. Interplay of the principles describing spatial complexity
with the requirements of minimum energy in the organization of natural
structures.
nest: Valley, or local indentation, between adjacent closepacked spheres.
net: Planar array of adjacent polygons which can be folded along shared
edges and closed together to create a specific polyhedron.
obtuse angle: Angle greater than 90 degrees.
omni-accommodative: Able to accommodate all spatial directions, or model
all transformations; omnidirectional.
omni-interaccommodative: Describes cooperative relationship between
noncontradictory principles or evidence, which are thus more significant
considered together than separately.
omnisymmetrical: Symmetry in all spatial directions.
pattern integrity: Reliable or consistent arrangement of "energy events" (or
constituent parts) in dynamically regenerative system. A pattern with
284
A Fuller Explanation
structural integrity, that is, a pattern that coheres for some period of
time.
precession: Two or more systems in motion with respect to each other
involving 90-degree tum. In addition to its meaning in physicsdescribing a complex motion of a rotating body in response to an applied
torque-Fuller employs this word (as well as his own "interprecessing")
to refer to two geometrical systems which, oriented perpendicularly to
each other, reveal a new system or geometric relationship.
quanta: Used by Fuller to mean indivisible discrete units, limit-case particles,
isolated energy events. See finite accounting system.
Appendix E: Glossary
285
Bibliography
Notes
Chapter 1
290
A Fuller Explanation
2See Appendix C.
3It must be noted that tetrahedra cannot fit together face to face to form
the larger tetrahedra shown, but rather must alternate with octahedra, as
will be explored at length in later chapters (8, 9, 10, 12, 13). The values
given for the volume of each tetrahedron are based on using a unit-length
tetrahedron as one unit of volume, in exactly the same manner that a
unit-length cube is conventionally employed. Despite the tetrahedron's
inability to fill space, the relative volumes of tetrahedra of increasing size
are identical to those exhibited by cubes of increasing size.
Chapter 3
Notes
291
292
A Fuller E'Cplanation
lLoeb, p. 829.
2A. L. Loeb, "Addendum to Contribution to Synergetics," published in
Synergetics 2: Further Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking, (New
York: Macmillan Publishing, 1979), pp. 473-476.
3Dennis Dreher of Bethel, Maine designed an omnidirectional hinging
joint, which allows the necessary twisting of adjacent VE triangles in the
jitterbug. This joint can be seen in Photograph 11-1.
Chapter 12
Notes
293
Chapter 13
Chapter 14
IBuckminster Fuller, Critical Path (New York: St. Martins Press, 1981),
p.13.
2This fact was demonstrated in the" tensegrity" bicycle wheel experiment
mentioned in Chapter 7. In tests to determine the minimum number of
tension (Dacron string) "spokes" required to stabilize its hub, the wheel's
eventual structural failure originated with buckling of its rim. Long arc
spans (which were a consequence of the low number of radial spokes) were
too thin to withstand the compression force created by loading the hub and
transmitted to the rim through the tension spokes. The usual arrangement,
which consists of a fairly large number of spokes (36 or more), therefore
turns out to be advantageous; despite the fact that there are many more
spokes than necessary to restrain the hub, this large number does serve to
subdivide the otherwise vulnerable arc segments of the compression-element
rim. See also Edmondson, "The Minimal Tensegrity Wheel."
3Recalling the principle of angular topology in Chapter 6, we also know
that the" angular takeout" is 720 degrees. That is, if we subtract the sum of
the surface angles at each vertex of a convex polyhedron from 360 degrees,
the sum of all these differences will be exactly 720 degrees.
4Ernst Haeckel, Art Forms in Nature (New York: Dover, 1974), plate 1
(Radiolaria) and plate 5 (calcareous sponges).
5See Chapter 8, notes 3 and 4.
6Note that the engineering term "pure axial force" is thus a convenient
simplification, which is effective in terms of structural analysis, rather than
an accurate scientific description. A strut which is to carry either axial
compression or tension can be significantly lighter than one which is subject
to bending or torque.
7Buckminster Fuller, "Tensegrity," Creative Science and Technology, IV,
No.3 (January-February, 1981), p. 11.
294
A Fuller Explanation
RSynergetics, p. 354.
Index
Carbon atoms
carbon fiber, 246-247
diamond versus graphite, 29, 142
general bonding of, 174
Chinese physicists, Tsung Dao Lee and
Chen Ning Yang, 179
Closepacked spheres, sphere packing, 9,
18, 100-126 (Chapter 8), 127, 128,
l32, l33, l38, 154, 164, 175, 178,
183, 189, 201, 227
cubic versus hexagonal, 104, 105, 106,
lO7
formula for total numbers of spheres,
115, 116, 118, 119, 238
icosahedron and sphere packing, 117,
118, 159; see also Shell systems
mathematical challenge, 102-106, 108
nests, 103-107, 111, 115, 120, 121
planes of symmetry, 106-107
tetrahedral clusters, 108, 110-114, 120
triangulation, 117
vector equilibrium and sphere
packing, 101-107, 114-116, 159
see also Nuclear spheres
Complementarity l31, 178-180
complementary quanta: A- and Bmodules, 192, 193, 195
concave-convex,
tension-compression, and other
pairs, 30, l33, 179, 244
fundamental complementarity in
physics, 179, 192, 195
inherent complementarity of Universe,
l33, 158, 178, 179
of octahedron and tetrahedron, l31,
132,133-135,137,140,178,180
Compression, see Tensegrity
296
Index
Index
versus continuum, 67, 235
formula to relate frequency and
number of spheres, 116, 118, 125,
238,239
geodesic domes and, 235-243
higher-frequency polyhedra, 135, 136,
148, 155-157, 184, 186-188, 227,
235, 237, 256
and size, 66, 67
sphere-packing and, 112, 114-117, 125
and time, 67
Fuller Institute, see Buckminster Fuller
Institute
General Dynamics, titanium shell
experiment, 239
Generalized principle, 1, 12, 13, 33-35,
110, 116, 180, 188, 240, 259, 262,
263
principle of angular topology, see
Angular topology
see also Principle of design covariables
Geodesics, 227, 231, 235, 237, 233-257
(Chapter 15)
four-frequency icosahedron, 77, 78,
237,240
geodesic dome, 1, 5, 63, 236, 239-243,
254, 258, 262, 263
geodesic mathematics, 3, 232
geodesic polyhedra, 28, 77, 78, 227,
231,236, 240, 256
great-circle chords, 236, 242, 262
variable geodesic patterns, 240-242
see also Frequency, Shell systems
God, 11, 14, 59,258,259
Golden section, 18, 166-168
Gravity
Fuller anecdotes, 2, 247, 248
mass interattraction, 13, 33, 204, 245,
249, 267
Great circles, 26, 206-231 (Chapter 14)
bowties, 219-228, 230
cosmic railroad tracks, 228, 229, 231
definition of, 206
energy paths, 226-229
great-circle arc, 207, 221, 232, 233
great-circle patterns, 209-213
icosahedral, 212-217, 224-227, 230,
234, 235, 255
297
298
Index
Invention (cont.)
see also Design science
Invisibility
invisible reality, 2, 14, 34, 163, 170,
172, 232, 246, 247, 250-252, 256,
268
invisible Universe, 162, 250
Isotropic vector matrix (IVM), 10,
127-142 (Chapter 9),143,150,159,
164, 189, 192, 195-197
alternating octahedra and tetrahedra,
127,128, 131-134, 137, 146, 178,
189
cube and IVM, 137, 138,139
equilibrium, 129
frame of reference, 140, 143, 144, 146,
154,157,164,165,167,170,175,
180, 181, 183, 185, 188, 204, 217,
229
IVM', 139, 140, 143, 150, 154, 180,
181
omnisymmetry, 129, 130, 137, 141,
165, 183, 189
omnitriangulation,133
square cross-section of IVM, 133, 134
VE and IVM, 135; see also Vector
equilibrium and space-filling
see also Space-filling
IVM, see Isotropic vector matrix
Jitterbug
complex of jitterbugs, 170, 171
flexible VE model, 159, 169
solid-triangle model, 169
transformation, 159-163, 169, 170,
174, 213, 216
Kenner, lIugh, 69, 290
Klug, Aaron, 238, 239
Least common denominator (LCD),
189-192, 195, 196, 198, 213-218,
225, 234, 242, 243
Lee, Tsung Dao, 179
Lesser circle, 206
Tropic of Cancer, 206, 207
Leverage, 12, 56
MacCready, Paul
Gossamer Albatross, 246, 247
Malthus, Thomas, 4, 268
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT), 4, 5, 59, 66
Mercator projection, 263, 264
Mite, 195, 196, 199, 200, 202
cubes and, 198,200
mirror symmetry of, 197, 198, 202
rearrangement of, 202, 203
rhombic dodecahedron and, 198, 200
More with less, 268, 269
Mozart, 58
Multiplication by division, 143, 149, 154,
156-158,162,178,193,212
Index
Octant, 120, 137, 150-153, 151, 178, 185,
190
Octet symmetry, see Symmetry
Octet Truss, 1, 63, 64, 141, 142, 178, 198
Operational mathematics, 6, 8, 10, 24,
29,30,143,146,175,219,235
operational procedure, 9, 18, 179, 193
Pattern integrity, 54, 56-59, 97
life, 9, 58, 59
knot, 57-59
"thinkable me," 58
wave, 57, 58, 171
Pentagonaldodecahedron,41,49
symmetry of, 41, 49, 168, 216
Phase changes, see Solids
Philosophy (of Buckminster Fuller), 1,
32, 97-99, 260, 269
philosophy and geometry, 32
Pi, 15-17
Platonic polyhedra, 34, 45, 252, 254
derivation of, 37-43
see also Regular polyhedra
Poles of spinnability, 44, 116, 208
Principle of angular topology, see
Angular topology
Principle of design covariables, 67
Quantum, 28, 124, 125
discrete quanta, 144, 205, 238
edges (six) as one, 28, 59, 62, 63, 77,
124
physics, 179
units, 167
see also A-module, B-module
Regular polyhedra, 28, 37-43, 52; see
also Platonic polyhedra
Rhombic dodecahedron, 28, SO, 51,52,
218
duality of, 51, 181, 182
icosahedron and, 137
IVM and, 137
space-filling property, 181, 182, 185
spheric, 138, 139, 140, 183, 198, 200,
204
volume, 153, 154
299
and Mites
Rhombic triacontahedron, 26, 216, 225
Rhombicuboctahedron, 155
Rhombohedron, 135, 180, 185, 186
S-module, 167, 168, 216
Saint Peter's Cathedral Dome, 243, 245
Schlaefli's formula, 44
Science of spatial complexity, 9, 23, 267,
269
order inherent in space, 23, 71, 84, 86,
100, 106, 154, 157, 168, 175, 230,
267
shape of space, 10, 11, 36, 68, 92, 101,
102, 107, 109, 114, 129, 130, 143,
144, 145, 146
spatial constraints, 9, 10, 36, 41, 42,
68,84,101,119,131,133,176,177,
209,239,242,257
Semiregular polyhedra, 28, 49, 52
Shell, or single-layer, systems, 117-119,
164, 227, 238, 239; see also Virus
Sixness
cosmic, 223
six positive-negative linear directions,
93,114,267
Slenderness ratio, 246
Snelson, Kenneth, 251
Sodium chloride, 33
Solar system as tensegrity, 247-248
Solids
geometric, 7, 17, 34, 154
impossibility of, 7, 16, 27, 61, 124,
125,171,184,245,249,250
phase changes in chemistry, 163, 172,
173,174
solid-things thinking, 250, 267
Solway, Carl: Carl Solway Gallery, 171
Southeast Asian basketry, 233
Space-filling
all-space filling, 175, 183, 196, 200,
203-205
complementarity, 170; see also
Isotropic vector matrix, alternating
octahedra and tetrahedra
complex, 173, 196, 203, 229
cubes, 175, 177, 181
domain of sphere, 138
300
Index
Space-filling (cont.)
filling space with closepacked spheres,
107,108,109,228
formula for space filling, 180,
185-188, 203-205
IVM and, 127, 132, 139, 140, 180,
189; see also Isotropic vector matrix
octet symmetry, 121, l78, 199, 203
rhombic dodecahedron, 181, 182
rhombohedron, 135, 180, 185
space fillers, 175, 179-181, 185, 188,
196,200,201,203
teams, 180, 181, 185
truncated octahedron, 184, 204; see
also Tetrakaidecahedron
see also Mite
Spaceship Earth, 5, 20, 61, 258, 260, 261
Space Structures, 10,47
Special case, 65, 66, 259
special-case experience, 13, 28
special-case system, 66, 81, 157
Sphere
impossibility of, 15-18, 235, 237, 238;
see also Infinity
omnisymmetrical form, 101, 114,208,
228
surface area of, 17,223, 235, 262
Spheric, see Rhombic dodecahedron
Spherical polyhedra, 207, 208, 209, 210,
212, 213, 215, 220, 223, 233, 263
Spherical triangles, 29, 30, 210, 214, 216,
223, 226
Spherical trigonometry, 79, 242, 243
Star tetrahedron, 46, 210, 224
Stellation, 47
definition of, 47, 48
degenerate stellation, 48, 50, 51, 52,
137, 139, 140, 181, 216
Straight line
chord, 17, 238, 263
Euclidean, 207, 323
imaginary straight line, 7
impossibility of, 4, 6, 8
vector as replacement for, 8, 38, 68
Structural stability
applied loads, 63, 64
necklace, 54-57
prime structural systems, 60-63, 117,
236
stability and jitterbug, 159-161
stability formula, 60
structure defined, 61
triangulation, 59-63, 97, 117, 119, 140,
141, 189, 226, 233, 235, 236, 242,
256
see also Triangles, stability of
Sunset
Fuller anecdotes about, 2, 4, 20
sunclipse, 20
sunsight, 20
Symmetry
defined, 52, 53, 101, 189
mirror symmetry, 53, 101, 190
octet symmetry, 121, l78, 199,203
omnisymmetry, 88, 89, 91, 93, 101,
114, 140, 141, 228; see also Isotropic
vector matrix
planar symmetry, 85-87
polyhedra as symmetry patterns, 68,
168, 180
rotational symmetry, 53, 101, 113, 165,
166, 169, l76, 195, 209, 210
seven unique axes of symmetry, 209,
210, 211, 213, 230
spatial symmetry, see omnisymmetry
see also Closepacked spheres, Great
circles, Interprecessing, Isotropic
vector matrix, Sixness, Four planes
of symmetry
Synergetics accounting, 130, 131
cosmic accounting, 193
Synergetics: The Geometry of Thinking,
4, 6, 13, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 44, 49,
70, 72, 74, 95, 102, Ill, 174, 183,
197, 207, 250
"Contributions to Synergetics," 37,
148, 157, 167, 168, 180, 196, 197
Synergetics 2: Further Explorations in
the Geometry of Thinking, 167
System, definition of, 25, 26, 38, 44
Index
tension materials, 98, 246, 247, 253,
267
use of tension in construction, 249,
250
Tessellations; 39-42, 176, 177, 236
Tetrahedron
basic unit in synergetics, 28, 38, Ill,
147,149,150,172,173,212
central angle of, 95, 121, 136, 137
cheese, 147, 155
four-dimensional, 71, 73, 93
inside-out, 63, 162
isotropic vector matrix and, 134-141
jitterbug and, 162
minimum system of Universe, 26, 27,
31, 32, 73, 97, Ill, 131, 140, 146,
149,158,172,189,190,202,223
net, 193, 194
pattern integrity, 59
perpendicular symmetry of, 122-124,
154, 155
rigidity of, 63, 142
sphere-cluster tetrahedra, see
Closepacked spheres
subdivision of tetrahedron, 150, 153,
155, 189, 190; see also A-module
surface angles of, 57, 77
tetrahedroning, 21, 22, 187, 188
truncation of, 46, 47, 135
topology of, 43, 212
unit of volume, 144, 145, 148, 149,
150,152,158,163,201
Tetrakaidecahedron, 48, 135, 136, 184,
185
Three-way grid, 232, 243, 256; see also
Structural stability, triangulation
Titanium shell experiment, 239
Thinking, Fuller's explanation of, 31-33
Triangles
equilateral triangles in vector
equilibrium, 91, 117
similar, 146, 147, 148
stability of, 26, 55, 56, 61, 97, 161,
244, 262; see also Structural
stability, triangulation
"triangling" instead of squaring, 21
triangular numbers, 109, 110
see also Closepacked spheres,
Isotropic vector matrix
Tropic of Cancer, see Lesser circles
301
302
Index
Vector ( cont.)
sphere packing and, see Isotropic
vector matrix
topology and, 68, 69
see also Isotropic vector matrix,
Synergetics accounting, Vector
equilibrium
Vector equilibrium (VE)
closepacked spheres and, 100, 106,
114~ 116, 164
conceptual versus actual equilibrium,
97~99, 162, 165
cuboctahedron as, 90
equilibrium defined, 82
equilibrium in nature, 249
hexagons and equilibrium, 87, 89, 90,
92, 101, 103, 105, 106, 113, 169
hidden VE inside octahedron, 155, 156
model of, 86, 87,90,93, 98, 170
space filling and, 127, 130, 170, 180,
185
tetrahedron and, 92, 93, 152, 153
time and equilibrium, 99
see also Isotropic vector matrix,
Jitterbug
Wealth,268
Whole numbers, 29, 30, 33, 35, 37, 149,
156, 158, 189, 249, 257, 260, 263,
264,266
whole-number relationship, 17, 18, 28,
144